Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 2nd August, 1946, for the Summer Recess—met at Half past Two O'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a Warrant for a new Writ for the Burgh of Glasgow (Bridgeton Division), in the room of James Maxton, esquire, deceased.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ARDROSSAN GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Disabled Persons

Mr. West: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of disabled persons registered in the Pontypool Exchange under the Disabled Persons Employment Act; and whether he proposes to establish a disabled persons sheltered employment factory in the area.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): On 19th August, 1946, there were 984 persons registered as disabled at the Pontypool Exchange; of this number 116 were unemployed, including 38 who are considered to require employment under sheltered conditions. The current building programme of the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation does not provide for the opening of a factory at Pontypool, but facilities for sheltered employment will be provided there as soon as the prior claims of areas with greater need have been met.

Mr. West: Can the Minister say the minimum number of disabled persons necessary to provide a British factory?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is impossible to give a figure like that because it depends upon the nature and the extent of their disability. However, I can say that Pontypool is in the list for consideration in the near future.

Statistics

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in employment, giving separate numbers of men and women, and the numbers of men and women registered as unemployed in August, 1939, and August, 1946, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It is estimated that the total numbers of persons of insurable age in employment in Great Britain, excluding members of the Armed Forces and Auxiliary Services and persons in indoor private domestic service, were 13,163,000 males aged 14–64 and 4,837,000 females aged 14–59 at mid-1939 and 11,800,000 males and 5,358,000 females at the end of July, 1946. The numbers of insured persons registered as unemployed were 899,000 males and 236,000 females in August, 1939, and 271,000 males and 93,000 females in August, 1946.

Building Workers

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Minister of Labour the number of occupied houses in Wales for August, 1939, and August, 1946, respectively; and the number of building workers in employment in the corresponding periods.

Mr. Isaacs: The first part of the Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The number of insured men, aged 14 to 64, employed in the building industry in Wales in August, 1939, was approximately 35,000, and it is provisionally estimated that the corresponding figure in July, 1946, was about 28,000.

National Enterprises (Ex-Servicemen)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour what instructions have been given to the Coal Board, B.O.A.C.and B.E.A., urging them to give any form of preference to ex-Servicemen in employment.

Mr. Isaacs: None, Sir.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how that squares with his often expressed sympathy for ex-Service men in employment in industry in general?

Mr. Isaacs: ; It squares entirely with the policy originally established by the Coalition Government, and supported by this Government, that there should not be special preference in employment for ex-Service men, but that they should take advantage of the resettlement facilities offered to them under the Acts of Parliament.

Colonel Hutchison: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to press his colleagues in charge of the various nationalised enterprises to give a fair proportion of employment to ex-Service men? Is he just going to leave them either to sink or to swim?

Mr. Isaacs: That is not the interpretation which should be placed upon my statement.

Vocational Training

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour in how many trades are employers being used in connection with ex-Service men's vocational training.

Mr. Isaacs: There are 97 trades in which employers are giving training to ex-Service men under the Government's vocational training scheme. In many of these the numbers are very small. The overall number receiving such training is nearly 6,000 including those who have had a preliminary course in a Government training centre.

Resettlement Committees (Interviews)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent his Department has issued directives to local and regional resettlement committees not to give personal interviews to ex-Service-men seeking grants and help towards resettlement in civilian life.

Mr. Isaacs: No instructions have been issued to the Resettlement Grants Boards to refuse a personal interview to any ex-Service applicant asking for one.

Builders (Emigration)

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of builders from the United Kingdom are being encouraged to emigrate to Australia; what numbers are involved; and whether due consideration has been given to the building requirements of this country.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Over the next six months free passage to Australia is to be given to 600 ex-Servicemen with experience in building or civil engineering. The advantages of this arrangement in assisting migration within the British Commonwealth, considerably outweigh the comparatively small loss to the building industry of this country.

Mr. Byers: In view of that decision, will the Minister take up with his colleagues in the Cabinet the question of relaxing our own barbarous immigration restrictions, to allow foreign building operatives to come here to help us?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member will put down a Question on that point, I will look at it.

Machine Toolmakers

Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: asked the Minister of Labour what action is being taken to increase the supply of machine toolmakers, particularly in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Mr. Isaacs: The remedy in the long run is improved apprenticeship arrangements, and this is under discussion with the engineering industry. An immediate, but temporary, alleviation is to use the services of men who have had appropriate experience in the Forces, and an agreement to do so has been reached.

Ex-Service Officers and Other Ranks

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of unemployed ex-Service officers registered at the offices of the Appointments Board.

Mr. Isaacs: At 16th September, 1946, there were 9,910 ex-officers, men and women, from the three Services and the Merchant Navy registered as unemployed at the offices of the Appointments Department.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the urgency of this matter, and because the figures are not decreasing, will the Minister appoint a commission to look into this, and alleviate the circumstances in which these men now find themselves?

Mr. Isaacs: I think it is right that the opposite figures should be looked at. During the six months ended 16th September, 3,850 ex-officers were found

employment through this Department. Undoubtedly it is due to the success of finding men jobs that we are having such a large number of men registering for employment.

Mr. Murray: Is there no one else who can do these jobs besides officers?

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he is so successful, in view of the figures he read out, when one in three have found a job and three in one have not?

Mr. Isaacs: The answer is that nearly 4,000 have been found jobs.

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour how many other ranks ex-Servicemen were registered at the Appointments Board as unemployed, at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Isaacs: At 16th September, 1946, there were 2,978 other ranks ex-Service-men and women registered as unemployed at the offices of the Appointments Department.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Again, will the Minister appoint a commission to go into this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: Again, I would point out that 1,776 have been found jobs. While the work is not succeeding to the extent we should all wish, it is proving a great boon to these men, not able to find work otherwise.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister appoint a commission?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.

Polish Armed Forces

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Labour the quotas of Polish soldiers, now being settled in this country, which the various industries are prepared to take.

Mr. Isaacs: No quotas of the kind indicated by the hon. Member have been determined or are proposed.

Housing (Airfields Labour Force)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consult with the Secretary of State for Air, with a view to tapping for the Government's housing drive, the labour force engaged in the maintenance of both permanent and redundant airfields; and what number of men


at present so employed he estimates that he will be able to turn to housing purposes.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): I have been asked to reply. The labour force engaged on the maintenance of airfields is kept continually under review by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Air and myself. Approximately 10,000 men have already been released from this work since August, 1945, and if any further reductions become possible they will be made without delay, having regard to the necessity for the efficient maintenance of the permanent airfields.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE, NEWCASTLE

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour in what circumstances, and on what grounds, he declined to open a Press conference in Newcastle on 30th July, until Press reporters had first produced trade union membership cards.

Mr. Isaacs: It is not true that I declined to open the conference in question until Press reporters had produced trade union membership cards.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Was it with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman that his Public Relations Officer wrote to the Press to explain that the Minister was trying to be funny?

Mr. Isaacs: As there is a Question upon that point addressed to the Prime Minister, I would suggest that the matter be deferred until then.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE HOSTELS, COVENTRY

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will inquire into allegations made by residents in Coventry National Service hostels that, owing to inefficient management, overhead administrative charges at these hostels are unduly high, and that if such maladministration were corrected it would be unnecessary to raise hostel charges.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. This allegation was made in general terms, and without any supporting evidence. I have every confidence in the measures taken by the

National Service Hostels Corporation to secure the efficiency and economy of their service.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when complaints of this kind are made, they are dealt with by his Ministry, and not referred to the National Service Hostels Corporation, who thus become judges in their own case?

Mr. Isaacs: The National Service Hostels Corporation were asked to provide information for my Ministry, upon which a decision was taken, and on which the Ministry was the judge.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Progress

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a statement on the rate of demobilisation for men from Groups 40–60.

Mr. Isaacs: It is not yet possible to add to the provisional programme announced on 7th August, covering releases from the Forces during the last three months of this year.

Deferred Releases

Mrs. Manning: asked the Minister of Labour what are the reasons which make it impossible to demobilise all men with two or more years of service before the end of this year.

Mr. Isaacs: The release of all men with two or more years' service by the end of this year would reduce the strength of the Armed Forces far below the essential minimum required to meet current commitments.

Mrs. Manning: Does the Minister realise the resentment felt by men with long periods of service, much of it overseas, at the new conscripts only being conscripted for two years?

Mr. Isaacs: There may be some feeling of dissatisfaction among some of the men, but to attempt to bring this proposal into operation would create far more discontent and resentment.

Directed Mineworkers

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Labour if he is now prepared to allow all service in the mines to count as military


service for the calculation of release group numbers, as is done in the case of conscripts selected for mining service by ballot.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The reasons for confining to ballotees the concession that a period spent in the mines might count towards release from the Forces were explained in my statement to the House on 29th November, 1945. Those reasons are still valid.

Oral Answers to Questions — I.L.O. CONFERENCE, U.S.A. (MINISTER'S PARTY)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour the names of the party which accompanied him to the U.S. during the Recess; which members of this party travelled at public expense; the date of arrival of this party in the U.S.; and the nature of the duties performed by the members of this party between that date and the opening of the I.L.O. Conference.

Mr. Isaacs: I was accompanied on my visit to the United States at public expense by Sir Godfrey Ince, Permanent Secretary of my Department, Mr. D. C. Barnes, Principal Private Secretary, and the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), Parliamentary Private Secretary. Some members of the official delegation to the International Labour Conference, who were on the way to Montreal at the same time, gave us some assistance in the United States before going on to Canada. The party arrived in New York on 3rd September. Between then and the opening of the International Labour Conference, I, and other members of the party, had meetings and discussions with members and officials of the United States Government, American and Canadian industrialists and trade unionists, representatives of American newspapers, and other persons in Washington and elsewhere. Mrs. Isaacs, and Lady Ince, travelled to America with us in a private capacity.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two ladies, whose names he mentioned, travelled at the public expense, or at their own?

Mr. Isaacs: I could perhaps ask that question about people going to Blackpool, but if the hon. Member had paid attention to the answer I gave, he would have heard these words:

I was accompanied on my visit to the United States at public expense …
—by certain people. I did not attempt to mislead the House in any way.

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the aspersion about Blackpool?

Major Cecil Poole: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather remarkable that similar questions were not received from the same source when the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government was accompanied round the world by members of his family?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Retired Teachers (Superannuation Payments)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the desire of retired teachers to have their superannuation payments made monthly instead of quarterly as at present; and whether he will make the desired arrangement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I am aware that such a change has been suggested from time to time by a few individuals, but it would involve a considerable increase in staff and in costs of administration, and I do not propose to make any alteration in the present arrangement.

Mr. Mathers: Does not my right hon. Friend realise the importance of putting retired teachers in this regard on the same basis as Members of Parliament who are paid quarterly but may have their emoluments paid monthly?

Mr. Westwood: I am willing to take that into consideration, but the Question, would mean a complete change in the arrangements. As I have pointed out, it would involve a great increase in staff and I am not prepared to do it at present.

Major Poole: Can my right hon. Friend say what increase in staff would be justified to make out three cheques instead of one?

Mr. Westwood: I could not answer that question without notice.

Barlinnie Prison (Staff Club)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, why the request of the staff of Barlinnie Prison for a licence for their club has been rejected by him.

Mr. Westwood: The request by the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association for approval of a licence for beer and spirits was refused because I regarded it as undesirable for a club licence to be held in respect of a club catering solely for members of the prison service.

Mr. Brown: Is not the Secretary of State aware that pretty well every prison in Britain has an officers' club, which in turn has a licence, and why this injustice to Scotland?

Mr. Westwood: The fact is that the traditions in Scotland are slightly different from the traditions in England. If I understand the position aright, most of these clubs, if not all of them, have only a beer licence. What was asked for in this particular case was a beer and spirits licence.

Mr. Brown: Can we reach a compromise on the basis of beer?

Mr. McGovern: Will the Secretary of State assure us that none of the private prejudices in the Scottish Office in favour of prohibition are prevailing?

Mr. Westwood: I can assure the hon. Member that they are not. I do not allow my personal convictions to interfere with my administrative work.

Boundary Commission (Proposals)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, when, and in what form, the proposals of the Boundary Commission regarding the re-division of certain Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland will be laid before Parliament; and from what date the approved changes will be effective.

Mr. Westwood: I understand that the initial Report of the Boundary Commission showing the constituencies into which they recommend that Scotland should be divided and the number of Members which they recommend should be returned by each of them is likely to be submitted towards the end of this year. The Secretary of State is required to lay the Report before Parliament as soon as

may be after its submission to him. It will be for Parliament to determine by legislation from what date such changes as may be approved shall be effective; and for practical reasons that date must presumably be the date of a General Election.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: When these proposals are laid before Parliament, will they be laid in a form in which they can be debated in detail?

Mr. Westwood: I should require notice of that question, and if I am given notice of it, I will endeavour to give the hon. Member an answer.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My supplementary question specifically asked in what form the proposals would be laid. If the Secretary of State can give me an answer on that, I think I would know the answer to my Question.

Mr. Westwood: There will have to be a Bill about the new constituencies in due course.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is not the Secretary of State able to say now whether the schemes of the Commission will be presented in toto, to be objected to or accepted in toto by the House?

Mr. Westwood: The proposals will be embodied in a Bill. Beyond that I cannot go at the moment.

Mr. Bowles: Cannot the Secretary of State, the Lord President and the Home Secretary now give us an undertaking that the proposals will be put into the Schedule to the Bill, and can, therefore, be amended?

Mr. Westwood: Surely, if they are in the Schedule to a Bill, that will be in due Parliamentary form. That is what we propose to do as far as these proposals are concerned.

Factory Sirens

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the siren is still being used in works and factories for assembly and dismissal purposes; and if, in view of its disturbing effect on public morale, he will take immediate steps to prohibit its further use.

Mr. Westwood: I am aware of this practice but I have no power to prohibit it. If my hon. Friend will let me know of any


particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider whether anything can be done about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR

Middle East

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War (1), how many of the German prisoners of war still detained in North Africa belonged to No. 999 German Division; and how many of that number had spent three years or more in German concentration camps before being forced into the German army;
(2) how many German prisoners of war are still detained in North Africa and when it is expected to repatriate them to their own country.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the arrangements for repatriation of German prisoners of war apply to prisoners at present in the Middle East; and, if so, on what terms and conditions.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): As explained on 4th June, in a reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), separate statistics relating to 999 Division are not available and could not be obtained without a considerable amount of labour. In dealing with repatriation, however, full regard is paid to the individual records of prisoners of war. There are at present about 98,000 German and 5,000 Austrian prisoners of war detained in the Middle East Command, of whom 2,000 anti-Nazi Germans and all the Austrians are to be repatriated as shipping becomes available. It has not yet been found possible to bring the Middle East within the scope of the scheme decided upon for the United Kingdom but an accelerated programme on the lines of that authorised for the United Kingdom will be introduced as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. Stokes: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that these camp officials have very little to do? Surely, it is possible for them to ascertain all about every prisoner under their control. Will he give the House an assurance that those people who are well-known anti-Nazis, as all these fellows are, will be given as speedy release as possible?

Mr. Bellenger: I think I can give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks, that they will be given as speedy a release as possible, but the matter is not so easy to deal with as is the case of prisoners in this country.

Mr. Benn Levy: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the repatriations, when they are completed in June, will cover all members of the 999 Division?

Mr. Bellenger: They will take their turn. As I have said, we hope to expedite the arrangements for these men almost concurrently with the arrangements we are making for prisoners, a much larger number, who have to go from this country back to Germany.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the release of these men in the Middle East is not beng delayed in order to complete the course in crypto Communism to which they are being subjected by the P.I.D.?

Mr. Bellenger: I was not aware of that fact, if such it be.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not a fact that these men of the 999 Division were among the first opponents of Nazism in Germany and, therefore, is it not just that whatever the labour involved in order to avoid an injustice, even to a single man, the necessary research should be made?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, many of them were, and we will do our best to get them home as speedily as possible.

Mr. James Hudson: In view of the fact that all the Austrian prisoners were found to be satisfactory, would my right hon. Friend give some preferential treatment to the Austrians, who have been labouring under a special grievance in this matter?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, they will get some preferential treatment.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the expressions this afternoon, if he will give instructions that these people should be sorted out, as there are plenty of staff and plenty of time to do it?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know if there is plenty of staff to do it—I do not think so—but I will see that these prisoners are sorted out, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Repatriation

Mrs. Manning: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to give a date by which time all German prisoners of war who wish to return to their own country will have left these islands.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now announce his intentions with regard to the 400,000 German prisoners of war now in this country; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to discriminate in any way between those known to have been victimised for active anti-Nazi opinions and those who have held definite Nazi responsibilities.

Mr. Bellenger: The plans for the repatriation of German prisoners of war from the United Kingdom were announced by His Majesty's Government on 12th September. I am not able, at present, to add anything to the statement then made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Officers (Pay and Allowances)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now examined the many complaints made by officers who considered themselves financially worse off under the new Code of Pay and Allowances announced in Command Paper 6750; and what substance he has found in these complaints.

Mr. Bellenger: Certain complaints have been received but examination has confirmed that there is no substance in the suggestion that officers who were serving before 1st July, 1946, became financially worse off from that date by reason of the operation of the new code. As indicated in the White Paper, special arrangements were in fact made to safeguard the position of such officers. From the long term aspect I am satisfied that the new code offers a career which can well stand comparison with the attractions of professional careers in civil life requiring corresponding qualifications.

Major Beamish: Was it the intention of the new code of pay that considerable numbers of senior officers of field rank and higher should be worse off than they were under the old code?

Mr. Bellenger: I am not satisfied that that is the case.

Conditions (Norway)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the troops still serving in Norway enjoy, apart from limited N.A.A.F.I. supplies, no amenities such as were available abroad during the war and are unable to afford the inflated Norwegian prices for such things as haircutting, extra food and drink, railway and tramway fares and cinema tickets; that their duties bring them into close relation with their Norwegian comrades whose hospitality they are unable, but ought to be able, to return; and whether he will alleviate these hardships either by a Norwegian allowance or by arranging for pay to be drawn at a sufficiently high exchange rate.

Mr. Bellenger: A special allowance has recently been granted to these troops.

Mr. Keeling: How much?

Mr. Bellenger: The allowance is 1s. 6d. a day for officers and 9d. a day for other ranks.

Mr. Keeling: As that seems inadequate to meet the grievances specified in the Question, will the Secretary of State say whether the commanding officer is satisfied that they have been redressed?

Mr. Bellenger: There are only a few of these troops in Norway—

Mr. Keeling: That does not make any difference.

Mr. Bellenger: I will certainly look into the question again to see if any representation has been made by the officer commanding.

Mine Clearance Parties (Casualties)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War how many casualties have occurred among mine clearance parties in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for War how many casualties have occurred among mine clearance parties in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bellenger: One hundred and eighty-five casualties, of which 139 were fatal, have been sustained since 1943 by the British Army bomb disposal units engaged on mine clearance in the United Kingdom. Similar casualties incurred by other Army personnel are not separately classified, but the numbers are believed to be relatively small.

Mr. Lindsay: May we have an assurance that German prisoners will be used as much as possible to do this work, in order to relieve British Servicemen?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. They are being used as much as possible.

Correspondence (Delay)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for War why he took more than five weeks to reply to a letter concerning the availability of evidence to a prisoner asking leave to appeal.

Mr. Bellenger: This is not an Army case and before a reply could be sent it was necessary to ascertain the exact nature of the prisoner's request and to obtain legal advice on the procedure to be followed.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Secretary of State for War assure us that there are standing orders in his Department for treating different classes of correspondence with a differential urgency, and that a very high priority is given to letters affecting legal process?

Mr. Bellenger: I would not like to give a specific answer to that question without examining it in greater detail in the Department. I shall endeavour to give great urgency and priority to all hon. Members' letters.

British Foreign Legion

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is now his intention to open recruiting for a British foreign legion.

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the success of his recruiting campaign?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir.

Personal Case

Mr. Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War for how long 5292930 Private H. Johnson, of the Oxon and Bucks Light Infantry, has been under close arrest; what is the reason for keeping him under arrest for so long and for the delay in his trial; and what difficulties have prevented the War Office from giving a detailed reply to the request for information concerning his case sent to them by the hon. Member for Oxford City.

Mr. Bellenger: A full report on this case has been called for from India. As soon as it has been received and examined, I will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this soldier has been under close arrest awaiting trial in India since the early months of this year—March or April, I think—and that I wrote as long ago as July, but still no report from India has come? Is not this quite intolerable, and a case which should be examined further?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I admit there has been some considerable delay in replying. That is the reason why I am sending a special cablegram demanding a reply with expedition.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what degree of expedition he can expect from a special cable to this Command?

Mr. Bellenger: I know that the writ of the Secretary of State for War does not run to the full extent in India as it does in other Commands, but I hope, at least, that my representations will have some effect when they are received there.

Major Poole: Could the Minister, without notice, tell us what is the maximum period in accordance with regulations during which a man may be kept under close arrest without trial?

Mr. Bellenger: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Eden: Will the Minister look into the practice of the War Office in this matter? Surely, it should not be possible for a matter to lie in this state so long without some action being taken by the War Office, quite apart from representations by hon. Members.

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) wrote on 23rd July, and a report was called for by letter from G.H.Q. on 2nd August. A "hastener" was sent by cable on 18th September, and I regret to say that a reply has not yet been received.

Fallen Personnel (Re-interment)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to prevent the exhumation and re-interment in Germany of the bodies of those Welshmen who fought in the battle for the Siegfried Line.

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered protests from British Legions and others in Wales and Monmouthshire against the decision to re-inter members of the Welsh Division, who lost their lives in the fighting on the Siegfried Line, in German soil; whether the decision is irrevocable; and, if not, if he will take the sense of the House on the matter.

Mr. Bellenger: It is clearly most desirable that all the British war graves overseas should be placed within permanent cemeteries, where they can be properly maintained. Re-interment in many cases is, therefore, unavoidable. The general policy regarding re-burial was carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, who decided that the graves should be concentrated within military cemeteries in the countries and zones in which the men fell. Many died and are buried in enemy countries, and the particular case to which attention has been drawn is in no sense exceptional. Repatriation to the United Kingdom would be impracticable as a general rule and the British and Dominion Governments decided about a year ago not to allow any exceptions to that rule.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the British Legion in South Wales have expressed considerable feeling on this matter, and has a reply been sent on this issue to the people who have expressed their opposition to this move?

Mr. Bellenger: This is a very difficult matter. We can all understand and sympathise with the relatives of those who have fallen overseas; but, speaking with some experience of two world wars, I think we had better let them rest in the countries where they fell in conditions which I have seen myself and which, as far as cemeteries are concerned, are admirable.

Emergency Officers (Short Service Commissions)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the provision of facilities to enable emergency officers between the ages of 45 and 55 to serve on under a regular engagement until they can qualify for a pension.

Mr. Bellenger: It is not intended to provide for the grant of permanent Regular

commissions to emergency commissioned officers aged 45 years or over. Such officers may apply for short service Regular Army commissions and, if accepted, will qualify for gratuity on completion of their contract.

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that officers who made application nearly five months ago for short service regular commissions under A.C.I. 511/46 are still without news of the result of their applications; and if he will take steps to inquire into the reason for this delay, and to effect an immediate improvement.

Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that there has been some initial delay. The number of short service commissions is limited and in order to obtain the most suitable officers it was necessary to widen the original field of selection by including later applicants. Nearly half the applications so far received have now been dealt with, however, and extra staff was recently allotted to the work in order to accelerate the consideration of cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR GRAVES, EUROPE (RELATIVES' VISITS)

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the desire of wives and parents to visit the graves of their husbands and sons buried in countries in Europe; when organised visits will be possible and if financial assistance will be given where needed.

Mr. Bellenger: I fully understand the desire of wives and parents to visit the graves of the fallen, but I regret that I am unable at present to add anything to the reply given on 4th June last to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Dr. Segal), a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the period of the Session between the Whitsun and the Summer Recesses Oral Questions to the Minister of Town and Country Planning were only reached once, to the Minister of Works twice, to the Minister of Supply, Attorney-General and Dominions Office three times, and that altogether during this period 1,452 Questions put


down for oral answer were not reached and less than a third of the Questions to the War Office, Board of Trade and Ministry of Food were reached; and whether, in view of the value of Questions and the limited opportunities now available to Private Members he will propose an increase in Question time.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am obliged to the hon. Member for sending me the figures upon which his Question is based. The proposal to increase Question time has been raised before, but the Government consider that its adoption might well result in more Oral Questions and even more supplementary questions. This was found to be the case in 1916 when Question time was extended for a short period of the Session. I venture to suggest, Sir, as you have done on several occasions, that we might be able to get through more Oral Questions if, in the general interest, hon. Members would cooperate in reducing, so far as possible, the number of supplementary questions. I would add, if I may, that it would also help if Oral Questions were reserved for matters which are not suitable for Written Questions or cannot be dealt with by correspondence with the Minister concerned.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Leader of the House aware that the chief value of an Oral Question is that one can put a supplementary; is he also aware that there is a widespread desire in all parties for more oral answers?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. That is, of course, the main attraction of Oral Questions, but, whilst I concede that hon. Members whose Questions are not reached would like more time in which they might be reached, I think, in the light of experience, it would lead to more Questions, and then we should have the complaint that we were cutting into the time allowed for the Debates which follow and which concern the main business before the House.

Mr. Stokes: Is not the chief difficulty that at last we have got a "live" Parliament, and will the Leader of the House bear in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has said, that the whole point of Members asking Questions is for them to pursue

them with supplementaries, if necessary, to the inconvenience of my right hon. Friend and his associates on the Front Bench?

Mr. Morrison: Personally, I like supplementary questions very much. It is only a question of having some degree of restraint in the interests of other Members who have main Questions to follow. As to the "live" Parliament, I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy a "live" Parliament.

Mr. De la Bère: It wants livening up more.

Mr. Eden: In view of the formidable figures which this Question reveals, and while as a former Leader of the House I admit some of the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman, might I ask whether he will consider asking the Select Committee on Procedure to look at this problem again in the light of the position revealed by this Question?

Mr. Morrison: It is perfectly competent for the Select Committee on Procedure to include this in the matters which they consider, but, honestly, I do not think the case is strong enough for the Government to ask them to do so. I ask hon. Members to look up the history of 1916 when the time for Questions was extended. They will find that it resulted in a large number of additional Questions, so that it did not solve the problem.

Mr. McGovern: Is it not very odd for the suggestion to come from the Front Bench—

Mr. Morrison: Which Front Bench?

Mr. McGovern: The Government Front Bench—that supplementary questions should be curtailed—seeing that all the hon. and right hon. Members of the Front Bench take precedence over back bench hon. Members and use it fully? Is it not in the power of Mr. Speaker to curtail supplementary questions?

Mr. Morrison: The last thing I would do would be to impinge on the powers of Mr. Speaker. All I did was to repeat some observations Mr. Speaker made some time ago.

Captain John Crowder: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has asked hon. Members to put down more Questions for written answer, could he


not ask the Departments to give the answers in a reasonable time, because one can only get an answer quickly by putting down an Oral Question?

Mr. Morrison: That is an old story, and I agree that in the past there have been complaints about it, but the Government did take steps to see that the Departments were hurried up. If hon. Members find that answers are taking a long time and they will let me know, I will take it up with the Departments concerned.

Major Beamish: Would it not save time it the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) would cut down his supplementary questions by 50 per cent.?

Oral Answers to Questions — WARTIME BLACK-OUT

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey expresses doubt on the protective value of a black-out and recommends a critical appraisal of its usefulness; and whether the Government have reconsidered the advantages and disadvantages of a black-out in war.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the Report to which the hon. Member refers. His Majesty's Government is surveying Home Defence problems, including the advantages and disadvantages of a black-out in wartime. Full account will be taken in the survey of the lessons learnt during the last war.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Prime Minister aware that this American Report is of great interest to people in this country, not only about the black-out but about many other matters, and will he endeavour to get it published?

Mr. Attlee: So far, public demand has not been sufficient to warrant asking the United States Government for permission for the Report to be published, but there are copies available in the Stationery Office, and if hon. Members wish to get one they will be able to do so. I will wait and see what demand there is, but so far it has not been very great.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS (INQUIRY)

Mr. Marples: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to appoint a

Royal Commission to inquire into the Press.

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to announce the Government's intentions on this subject.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the desirability of removing uncertainty and the undesirability of restricting the freedom of the Press?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNOFFICIAL STRIKES

Mr. Marples: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the unofficial strikes, with a view to discovering the causes of the strikes and with powers to make recommendations to eliminate such causes.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marples: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, to the long-suffering public, a strike is a strike, whether official or not, and will he take some other steps to get the negotiating machinery established before the strike starts?

The Prime Minister: I am quite aware of the nature of a strike, and I am sure the hon. Member realises that it is just the by-passing of the machinery which exists that causes people to strike. As a matter of fact, the number of unofficial strikes, having regard to the number of strikes altogether, has been extraordinarily small, and less than one-tenth of the number of working days has been lost in the last year compared with the number lost in the year immediately succeeding the first world war. While we all deplore unofficial strikes, I do not see that this is a matter on which we should become greatly excited.

Mr. Marples: Would the Prime Minister consider establishing some sort of machinery to eliminate these strikes when they do exist?

The Prime Minister: I shall welcome any suggestions from the hon. Member provided they do not infringe the freedom of the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS (DUTIES)

Mr. Marples: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the letter from the Public Relations Officer to the Ministry of Labour on a personal matter unconnected with the Department's work but affecting the Minister, which appeared in the "Spectator" of 16th August last, he will consider clarifying further the scope of these officers' public duties.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour jocularly referred to trade union membership cards at a recent Press conference at Newcastle. Very misleading reports of this were published in some sections of the Press, and the Public Relations Officer of the Ministry of Labour wrote a letter to correct misunderstandings of the position taken up by my right hon. Friend on this occasion. It should be, I think, a general rule that, where the personal conduct of Ministers is concerned, the matter should be dealt with by the Minister himself.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not putting too much on the Public Relations Officers of the various Government Departments to have to explain the jocularity of Ministers to the Press?

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether jocularity breeds contempt?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER'S VISIT TO EIRE

Major Beamish: asked the Lord President of the Council by what authority and for what reason he took a 1946 Humber 27 h.p. Metropolitan Police motorcar and chauffeur for use during his holiday in Eire; what was the total cost of maintaining and servicing the motorcar and of transporting, accommodating and paying the chauffeur; by whom these costs were met; what road mileage this motorcar did from the date it left London until its return; and by whom the petrol was provided and how much.

Mr. Hogg: asked the Lord President of the Council why an official motorcar was exported to Eire to meet him when on holiday; and the approximate cost to the Treasury incurred in connection with his visit to Eire.

Mr. H. Morrison: In order that official papers could be sent to me while I was

on holiday, it was necessary to arrange for a courier service between my hotel and Dublin and Rineanna. For this purpose, and in order to enable me to return to London immediately in the event of this becoming urgently necessary, I was advised that the only satisfactory arrangement would be for a car and driver to go to Eire. During its absence from London, the car did a total mileage of about 2,500 miles. Most of this mileage was accounted for by courier services, but, in addition, it of course included the journeys to and from the ports in Britain and in Eire and Northern Ireland. Five hundred and seven miles were on non-official journeys in respect of which I paid the usual mileage rate. The petrol consumption was approximately 180 gallons. The total net cost to public funds, which is estimated to be about £66, will be met from the Privy Council Office Vote. Apart from petrol obtained from United: Kingdom sources, the Government of Eire kindly authorised the supply of additional petrol for the car.

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the extreme undesirability of Ministers making this misuse of public vehicles? Is it not possible for them to obtain taxis in the ordinary way in the countries to which they feel it necessary to go for their own amusement, and cannot they pay for them themselves out of their salary of £100 a week?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, that supplementary question is a little bit cheap. In the first place, I quite agree that it would be wrong for there to be misuse of Ministerial cars. There was no misuse on this occasion, and if the only degree of responsibility of the hon. Gentleman is that he can make a suggestion that secret State documents can be carried by taxi cabs, he should think again.

Mrs. Jean Mann: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether or not there is an espionage service on Members of the Front Bench at home and abroad, by whom is it maintained and what is its approximate cost?

Mr. Morrison: Unfortunately, there is nobody in this House to answer for the Conservative Central Office.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Could not a despatch rider, such as, during the war, carried


documents just as important as these, have been used just as effectively and much more cheaply?

Mr. Morrison: If I were an hon. Gentleman, sitting on that side of the House, I would not start inquiries about the transportation arrangements during the war.

Mr. Hogg: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Nuellberghof Estate, Lemgo

Mr. Orbach: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the German local authority at Lemgo decided to requisition the Nuellberghof Estate which is owned by Hugenberg, with a view to turning it into a home for elderly refugees; that this proposal was sanctioned by the Military Government and that when the Military Government were approached by Hugenberg they vetoed the Lemgo local authority's action; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The requisitioning of the Nüllberghof Estate was at no stage vetoed by the Military Government, but was authorised over two months ago, after appeals had been considered and necessary arrangements completed for the continued cultivation of the agricultural land. A number of elderly refugees are already installed.

Mr. Orbach: Will the Minister agree that it was authorised after this Question had been placed on the Order Paper?

Mr. Hynd: I do not know on what date the Question was placed on the Order Paper, but the Lemgo local authority confirmed the requisitioning on 12th July, 1946, and authority was given by the Military Government at the end of July for the cultivation of 200 acres of agricultural land attached to the estate, for certain repairs to be carried out and for the disinfection of certain premises. When these matters had been carried out, requisitioning took place.

Oats (Harvest)

Mr. Spence: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what total acreage of oats will be harvested this year in the British-occupied zone in Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: About 1,337,000 acres.

Mr. Spence: Can the Minister say whether the majortiy of this acreage has been sown with British seed oats?

Mr. Hynd: In order to give an accurate answer to that question, I should have to have notice of it.

British Families (Accommodation)

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware of a statement published by the Control Commission for Germany in their official "Gazette" on or about 17th August, to the effect that, owing to a shortage of accommodation, it will not be possible to accept all the British families who may wish to go to Germany; and whether he will give an assurance that the difficulty of finding accommodation will not be allowed to prevent families going to Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: This statement related particularly to Lubbecke and Minden, where accommodation is very limited, and where a heavy concentration of British staff is located. In these and some other localities suitable accommodation cannot be made available at once for all the British families who wish to go there, without unreasonable dispossession of German occupants, but, in so far as conditions allow, every effort is being made to expedite the reception of families in all parts of our zone.

Mr. Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that, if better arrangements cannot be made, he will not get the best men in the Control Commission?

Ruhr Coal Exports

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what countries imported coal from the Ruhr during the three months ended 31st August; what quantity each received; and what contribution each made towards the British Government's expenditure in cash and kind in the Ruhr coalfield.

Mr. J. Hynd: As the list is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission,


circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT. The transactions were on a straightforward sale basis except in the case of Switzerland, where arrangements are being negotiated for electric power to be supplied in return for coal. Several of the other countries concerned are supplying essential imports to the British zone, but their import and export contracts are not linked.

Following is the information:

Solid Fuel Exported from the British Zone in the three months ended 31st August, 1946


Receiving Country
Metric tons


France
472,446


France (N. Africa)
36,155


Belgium
303,568


Holland
428,618


Denmark
425,455


Norway
225,019


Luxembourg
368,367


Austria
507,458


Italy
252,547


Switzerland
9,214


Finland
24,532


Sweden
58,914


Portugal
32,879


Greece
23,079


Yugoslavia
18,065


Total
3,186,316

Taxation (Rates)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the rates of Income Tax and Surtax imposed upon inhabitants of the British zone in Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: The rates of personal Income Tax vary between total exemption for the lowest incomes and 95 per cent. for the highest range of income; but, owing to the existence of different taxes for wages, personal income, corporation income, and excess profits, and to a complicated system of allowances and deductions, I am afraid that it is impossible to give a comprehensive answer to the Question. The following examples will, however, give a broad indication of the incidence of these taxes:
A married couple, with two children, with wages of 2,000 marks a year pay no tax. With wages of between 5,000 and 20,000 marks a year, they will pay from 24 per cent to 64 per cent. in tax. A personal income of 600 marks a year is free of tax. On incomes between 2,000 marks and 100,000 marks a year, tax-ranges from 20 per cent. to 88 per cent. The aggregate sum of all these taxes, however, including corporation and

Excess Profits Tax, may not exceed 90 per cent. of the total net income.

Mr. Drayson: As 2,000 marks are apparently worth only 40 cigarettes, is it not very ungenerous that inhabitants of the British zone should pay Income Tax-on so small an income?

Hansard (Prisoner-of-War Camps)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he will arrange for HANSARD to be circulated in all prisoner-of-war camps under British control.

Mr. J. Hynd: Under arrangements already existing, the Control Office distributes to camps in the United Kingdom copies of HANSARD, which report matters of interest to German prisoners of war, such as Debates and Questions about Germany and foreign affairs generally or about the prisoners of war themselves. In addition, copies reporting other Debates are sent by my Department to meet individual requests from camps. Similar arrangements are being made for the Middle East. In the United Kingdom alone, prisoners are housed in over a thousand different camps and units, and a general distribution of all copies of HANSARD would not be practicable, nor would it be a justifiable public expense.

Mr. Stokes: With reference to the last part of the answer, may I ask why not? Surely, what all these fellows are pining for is some, shall I say, harmless reading. It is surely the best way of letting them learn for themselves how our Parliamentary system works, so why not let them all have it?

Mr. Hynd: When there is a request from the prisoners or the camp commandant, HANSARD is regularly supplied as required. We also make arrangements for printing very full reports of all Parliamentary Debates in the prisoner-of-war journal and by this and other means ensure that the prisoners get as much information as it is economic and convenient for them to have.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it not invidious that there should be any official selection? If prisoners are to be allowed to have copies of HANSARD, it would seem to be better to let them have them all rather than that there should be any selection.

Mr. Hynd: As I have pointed out, the selection is that of items affecting Germany, foreign affairs generally and the prisoners of war themselves. I think that that is a very fair basis on which to issue HANSARD which may be of direct interest to all prisoners, and, as I have stated, in addition, they can have any HANSARD they require where there is a demand from any particular camp.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Could the Minister arrange to have the verbatim comments of these prisoners collected and circulated to hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Paget: Will the Minister say what authority it is that censors and denies the entry of HANSARD into the British zone of Germany?

Mr. Hynd: There is no such denial or censorship of HANSARD in the British zone of Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Cables and Wireless (Dominion Governments)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the letter of acceptance from each of the five Dominions in which a desire was expressed that cables and wireless should be nationalised.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No, Sir, it would be contrary to established practice to publish correspondence of this nature.

Mr. Bossom: Are not these matters of such vital importance to our Empire that the public should know exactly what was said?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the public knows, or would if it read HANSARD. There was a Debate on this matter when Cable and Wireless were taken over and a very full statement was made to the House as to what the Dominions thought.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Channon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, on a new type of one-seater motorcar costing £198, specially made for disabled people, a Purchase Tax of £55 is required; and whether he will consider waiving or reducing the tax on this type of motorcar in view of the excessive total cost and consequent hardship involved.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: All private cars are chargeable with Purchase Tax whether or not adapted for the use of the disabled, and I could not make an exception for one particular car. Invalid carriages are exempt from tax.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman consider exempting all carriages used by disabled ex-Servicemen or civilians?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The difficulty is to know to what use a particular car is to be put when it is sold, and it is at that stage that this tax is levied.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury will, by Order under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, direct that Purchase Tax on British stoneware hot-water bottles shall cease to be chargeable, or be reduced to 16⅔ per cent., the rate chargeable on similar articles made from imported aluminium.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, not at present.

Sir J. Mellor: Why not?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This matter was dealt with in connection with cognate matters when the Finance Bill was before the House; good reasons have been given on more than one occasion why this particular action cannot be taken, and I cannot add to what has been said.

Sir J. Mellor: What is the point of the Treasury being given power to do these things by Order?

National Savings Movement (Press Advertisement)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the poster issued by the National Savings Movement and entitled, "A Bit of Land of Your Own," was withdrawn.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was not a poster, but a Press advertisement; it was not prematurely withdrawn, but ran its scheduled course.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning admitted that they requested the withdrawal of this advertisement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My advice is that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning did no such thing, but that the matter was wrongly reported in the Press.

Postwar Credits (Refunds)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abandon the practice of refunding Postwar Credits to old people in the form of non-negotiable cheques.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any case which he has in mind in which inconvenience has been caused by this method of payment, I shall be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Allighan: Whilst I will do that, will not the Financial Secretary admit the desirability of issuing these Postwar Credits in a negotiable form, such as money orders?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The trouble is that when they are made negotiable in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend it opens the door to fraud. We desire to make these payments, so far as the Revenue is concerned, as secure as possible. This is a practice which has been in existence for many years and about which there have been few complaints.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not my hon. Friend realise that a great many of the people concerned with these particular repayments are very poor people indeed who have no banking facilities, and that, therefore, it follows, that in every such case there must be hardship?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: A note is sent with every cheque indicating to each recipient just how he or she can get it cashed and, as I have said, we have had very few complaints.

Pensions (Increase) Bill

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates being able to introduce the proposed new Pensions (Increase) Bill in respect of retired State servants.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend in his answer to the hon. Member's Question on 20th June last.

Mr. Brown: Does not the Financial Secretary recollect that what was then said on

behalf of the Government was that it was hoped to introduce the Bill some time during the Session? I am now asking about what time in the Session—before Christmas, after Christmas, or when?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon Friend's exact words were:
I hope early next Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 388.]
The next Session has not yet come.

Entertainments Duty (Football Matches)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that since his reduction of the tax on football matches, only a small proportion of the accommodation for the public at the Chariton football ground is available at the reduced price of 1s. 3d., and that a spiked iron fence has been erected to separate this from that section which conforms to the old 1s. 6d. price to which specially convenient transfer facilities have been provided; whether he is satisfied that this is not defeating the object of the tax reduction; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that football clubs pass on to the public the full benefit of the reduction.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend has called for reports covering the country generally, including the ground mentioned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make about Business on Friday this week?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. On Friday we propose to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Roosevelt Memorial Bill as the first Order, and afterwards to make further progress with the Atomic Energy Bill.

MUTINY CHARGES, MALAYA (SENTENCES)

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, at the beginning of Questions, I forgot that there were two Petitions to be presented in relation to a statement which is to be made by the Secretary of State for War, and, therefore, it is only fair to allow them to be presented before the statement is made.

Mr. Garry Allighan: Mr. Speaker, I have here two Petitions, one signed by nearly 10,000 residents in Gravesend in respect of two men of Gravesend, and one signed by 1,614 people, being the total population of the village of Cuxton, in respect of one Cuxton man in the paratroop corps, protesting against the sentences and humbly petitioning a revision and reduction in the sentences. I beg to present the Petitions.
Petitions to lie upon the Table.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg the House to receive a Petition signed by 35,000 people. The Petition asks for sympathetic reconsideration of the sentences passed on 243 British paratroops now held in Malaya.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I have a Petition here which I beg leave to submit in respect of Private—

Mr. Speaker: I have no notice of that. I have not seen anything on the Petition Blue Paper about it, and it is, therefore, not in Order.

Mr. Thomas: Unfortunately, I only picked up the Petition in the post this morning.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member's Petition is out of Order. I think the fact that he has received a Petition is made perfectly clear, but it cannot be presented here unless it has been properly put to the Table.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Captain Bullock: —To ask the Secretary of State for War (1) if he has received a report on the conditions prevailing in the camps where the 243 paratroopers are serving their sentences for mutiny in Singapore; and if he is satisfied with the conditions there;
(2) if he will make a statement on the sentences passed on the 243 paratroopers who were found guilty of mutiny by a court martial at Singapore.

Mr. Austin: —To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he has considered the findings of the court in the matter of the trial of men of the 13th Parachute

Battalion; and whether he will review the sentences passed with a view to their remission.

Mr. Shurmer: —To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that public opinion has been shaken by the severity of the sentences passed on the 243 paratroopers at Singapore: and, in view of this, if he will consider an immediate review of the sentences.

Mr. Gibson: —To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the bad conditions at the rest camp at Maur, he will give favourable consideration to revoking the sentences which the court martial has imposed on the paratroop regiment involved in the protest against these conditions.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: —To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take the earliest opportunity of reviewing the sentences recently passed on 243 men of the 13th Parachute Battalion.

Mr. Asterley Jones: —To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a full statement on the circumstances leading to the recent court martial of men of the 13th Parachute Battalion, S.E.A.C.; and what action is now being taken with regard to the sentences imposed.

Mr. Gammans: —To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on his intentions with regard to the sentences imposed by the courts martial at Kluang in Malaya.

Mr. Wyatt: —To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement giving all the circumstances under which personnel of the 13th Parachute Battalion, S.E.A.C, were arraigned for court martial; and whether, in view of the exceptional circumstances he will consider giving instructions forthwith to have all or most of the sentences suspended.

Mr. T. J. Brooks: —To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will have an inquiry made into the sentences passed on the 243 paratroopers by a recent court martial in Malaya for alleged mutiny; and if he will suspend all the sentences until a full and special inquiry has been made into the alleged offences against military regulations.

Mr. David Jones: —To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the conditions under which the men of the 13th Parachute Battalion lived from June to July, 1946, and, having regard to the evidence of the treatment meted out to these men by the officers concerned, if he is prepared to review the sentences passed by the general court-martial.

Mr. Warbey: —To ask the Secretary of State for War what action he has taken to order a review of the sentences passed at a recent court-martial on 253 men of the 13th Battalion, Parachute Regiment, and to institute an inquiry into the alleged unsatisfactory condition of the camps at which these men were stationed.

Mr. Longden: —To ask the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the sentences that have been passed on the 243 paratroopers from Kluang Camp, Malaya; and if he will take steps to have these men brought home and given the right to restate their case and to serve their punishment here.

Mr. Yates: —To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in the case of the 243 Paratroopers in Malaya recently court-martialled, some have complained that whilst walking in four inches of mud working conditions have become unbearable, while one soldier has complained, particulars of which have been sent to him, that he was only able to have one bath in 11 months; and if he will review the sentences in the light of these complaints and report to this House upon the steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such working conditions being imposed upon any section of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Piratin: —To ask the Secretary of State for War (1) if any, and if so what, inquiry has been made into the conditions prevailing at Kuala Lumpur at the time when an alleged mutiny took place; and what disciplinary action, if any, has been taken against any officer or other rank responsible for such conditions;
(2) if he has considered the protest made by 55 ex-Servicemen from all commands against the harsh punishment inflicted an the men of the 13th Lancashire Parachute Regiment, which was

forwarded to him by the right hon. Member for Mile End; and what action he proposes to take thereon.

Mr. Bellenger: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to reply to these Questions by making the following statement on the mutiny which occurred in the 13th Parachute Battalion on 14th May at Muar Camp, Malaya, at this, the first opportunity, after the re-assembly of the House.
The battalion arrived at Muar Camp from Java on the night of 5th May, and was shortly afterwards joined by a draft of 120 men, 50 straight from this country and 70 who had been away from the battalion for the previous six months due to illness. Muar is a tented camp and conditions were undoubtedly bad, and although it had been previously occupied by another unit from whom this battalion took over, much required to be done to bring it up to a reasonable standard of habitation. It lacked proper facilities for washing, feeding, cooking and recreation and there was not electric light in all tents. There were several reasons for the bad conditions of the camp, the most important of which were that the changeover from the war to the peacetime system of administration was in the transitional stage and a certain failure on the part of the battalion, and advance party in particular, to help themselves. The commanding officer, however, took immediate steps to have these conditions improved after the battalion's arrival, but there was a heavy fall of rain which was quite unexpected and which caused living conditions in the camp to deteriorate considerably.
On the evening of 13th May there was a certain amount of discontent in the canteen and the word "strike" was mentioned. Later the lights were put out and someone asked those present if they were prepared to stick to what had been arranged. At about 7 a.m. on 14th May, about 260 men congregated on the sea wall in a sullen mood, and when ordered to disperse by the orderly officer made no move. They later moved to the canteen and here they were addressed by the commanding officer who told them that they should air their grievances in the proper way, that he could not entertain collective grievances, and that if they refused to return to duty they would be guilty of mutiny. He gave them a direct order to


return to their companies. As the men did not respond to this order the commanding officer reported the matter to his superior commander. During the afternoon the divisional commander arrived and addressed the men, who had again assembled on the sea wall. The commanding officer then put out company markers and ordered the men to fall in. They did not do so, and the divisional commander ordered another battalion to take them into custody. None of the officers or N.C.Os. took part in the mutiny, nor had they any previous knowledge that it was going to occur.
Two Courts of Inquiry were assembled on 17th and 22nd May; one to inquire into the causes of the mutiny and the other to inquire into the conditions in Muar Camp. As a result it was decided that all the 258 men concerned must be brought to trial for mutiny. The trial commenced on 12th August and was completed on 19th September. Of the 258 men charged three were acquitted and all the remainder were convicted. Of these, eight were sentenced to 5 years' penal servitude and to be discharged with ignominy. The General to 3 years' penal servitude and to be dis-carged with ignominy. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief as Confirming Officer did not confirm the proceedings in the case of 12 accused who were accordingly released, and in the remaining 243 cases commuted all the sentences to 2 years' imprisonment with hard labour and to be discharged with ignominy.
There can be no shadow of doubt that these men were rightly charged with mutiny. The law regards mutiny as a most serious military offence and provides death as the maximum penalty. Mutiny may be described as the act of two or more soldiers who join together, whether actively or passively, in resistance to, or disobedience of, lawful authority. The obedience of lawful orders is vital in any fighting Service, and it is obvious that in the Armed Forces any form of resistance to lawful authority, whether active or passive, cannot and will not be tolerated. I am waiting the advice of the Judge Advocate-General on the legality of the proceedings and I will make a further statement when I have received it. The proceedings of the trial arrived in this country only a week ago and it has not yet been possible, owing to their great length, to complete a full review.

Mr. Shurmer: Could the Minister say what is going to happen to the wives and children of these men while they are waiting; and will any provision be made for them while they are awaiting a decision?

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps I can best answer that question by saying that I hope to make a very early statement indeed. The matter is now in the hands of the Judge Advocate-General and I am awaiting advice as to the legality of the proceedings. As soon as I receive that— which I think will not now be too long— I shall make an immediate statement to the House.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend institute inquiries to discover who was responsible for this camp being in this disgraceful condition, and then see that severe disciplinary action is taken against them as well as against these unfortunate paratroopers?

Mr. Bellenger: I have already taken action in that direction.

Mr. Eden: In view of the widespread distress which inevitably this matter has caused everyone, can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more definite in telling us when he hopes to make a further statement? For my part I have no objection, and I think it quite right that he should take time to make the further statement, but I think both the House and the country would like to know when that further statement may be expected. Clearly, every effort should be made to make it as soon as possible.

Mr. Bellenger: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope to be in a position to make the further statement this week.

Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that conditions at the camp were so intolerable that the men, however much they may have wanted to conform to military discipline in regard to dress and bearing, found it impossible to do so, and will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Bellenger: I have already admitted in my statement that conditions in the camp were far from ideal, but under no conditions can mutiny be excused.

Captain Bullock: Can the Minister make any statement as to the conditions in the


prison in which these men are serving their sentences? Are they better than those in the previous camp in which they were?

Mr. Bellenger: They are not serving their sentences in prison. At the present time they are in a tented camp, but under fairly reasonable conditions.

Captain Bullock: I thought I said prison camp.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend explain an apparent inconsistency in his original statement? He said he was awaiting a report from the Judge Advocate General as to the legality of the proceedings; yet, before saying that, he said there could be no doubt whatever that these men were rightly convicted. Is there not inconsistency there?

Mr. Bellenger: I think my hon. Friend did not hear my sentence aright. I said I had no doubt that these men were rightly charged with this offence.

Mr. Stephen: Would not the right hon. Gentleman have acted in the same way as these men in these intolerable conditions?

Mr. Bellenger: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has put that question to me. I served in the first world war, at times probably under worse conditions than these, and I say, with full cognisance of those facts and the fact that I was a soldier in the ranks, that mutiny cannot be excused.

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman say two things? How many men, other than the 258, were there in this battalion; and of the 243 how many belonged to the group of 120 which had only just arrived in that theatre?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I cannot give that information without a Question being

put down. Not all the men refused to obey the order. These are the men who did.

Mr. Yates: My right hon. Friend has referred to the fact that in regard to war conditions his experience has been very much worse. Is he not aware that we are now in times of peace?

Hon. Members: Are we?

Mr. Yates: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the course of his statement, he will assure the House of the steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of these disgraceful conditions in times of peace?

Mr. Bellenger: It is true that we are in times of peace, although I regret to say that overseas, and particularly in these parts, the conditions relating to peace bear no relation to the much better conditions at home and in certain commands nearer home. I am doing what I can to improve those conditions.

Major Poole: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that in no circumstances will these men be taken to India to serve their sentences, but that, if any sentences remain to be served, the men will be brought to this country to serve them?

Mr. Bellenger: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press a question like that, because the matter is more or less sub judice. I am awaiting legal advice from the Judge Advocate General.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that a further statement has to be made, and further questions may prejudice the matter which is under consideration. I suggest we had better now proceed to the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.47 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am quite sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will recognise the unique military, economic and international importance of this subject, and that those very unique conditions require very exceptional legislation. We have really no exact precedents to guide us in this matter. The military significance of the discovery and the application of atomic energy was demonstrated at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki. It was followed by world-wide concern as to the harmful possibilities of this development, and also by the realisation that there were possibilities of great good to the human race in the discovery of this new source of power if it could be ensured that it would be used for peaceful purposes only. The House will remember that in November, 1945, accompanied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) I went across to discuss with President Truman and with Mr. Mackenzie King this problem of the atom bomb and other new methods of destructive warfare. It was as a consequence of that visit that the United Nations organisation has now set up the Atomic Energy Commission to endeavour to work out some form of international control to free the world from the possibility of atomic war, while encouraging the industrial and commercial application of this invention.
The full economic significance of atomic energy is not yet known. I think there has been in some quarters a good deal of over-optimism, both as to what could be accomplished and as to the time within which we could see vast changes in our daily life. I do not think anyone has any doubt that there is here a possibility of revolutionary changes. Therefore, I think hon. Members of all parties will agree that development in this country is a prime responsibility of the Government; that the Government must have the powers to foster development, to guide it along the most fruitful lines, and to ensure that the

results are used in the best way for the peace and prosperity of this country and of the world. Today, we are not concerned primarily with the question of international control. That is a matter which is being worked out in the Commission set up by the United Nations organisation, and we all hope that that Commission will find an effective solution to remove the fears for the safety of mankind which have been aroused. I do not think there is sufficient awareness, perhaps, of the dangers in this country. I am quite sure that that awareness is not quite so acute as it is on the other side of the Atlantic. But we have been watching with anxious care the deliberations of the Commission, and it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to do their utmost to get an agreed scheme, and to cooperate fully in that scheme when it has been agreed; and this Bill before the House, in one of its aspects, is an earnest of the Government's determination that the United Kingdom shall be ready to play its part, its full part, in any international scheme.
The military applications are, of course, largely affected by international considerations; but, whether the United Nations organisation succeeds or not in getting a solution, we believe that the military applications must be the subject of the closest Government control. We hope that we may secure its prohibition for military use. If that were not so, or even if it were so, we should still need to have powers in this country; and it is important, in this regard, to remember that one cannot separate off exactly the plants that may produce power for civil use and the plants that may be used for military use. Power that produces for peaceful use may also produce an explosive element in the atomic bomb. The knowledge of the possibilities of this invention, and of how far it can be applied to economic and industrial exploitation, is not sufficient yet to produce a detailed scheme or a permanent scheme.
This Bill has no background of political bearing. It is forced upon us by the very nature of this new invention. We are not introducing a sudden Bill for nationalisation. We are taking the steps which any Government must take in dealing with an invention of such immense potential destruction; and whether there are private activities or public activities they must be subject to close governmental supervision.


In fact, the task of development could not really be undertaken except by Government. There is, first of all, the very large expenditure in money and materials. It is really a major productive effort. There is uncertainty as to the results; and there is, of course, a thing we must watch ail the time—the danger of disastrous accident if there were uncontrolled experiment.
As the House knows, the Government have already set up a large research establishment, and we are arranging for the production of fissile material for that establishment, and for other purposes; and the responsibility has been placed with the Minister of Supply; and this Bill will give him the necessary powers to discharge that responsibility. I cannot tell the House exactly what will be the future cost. The programme of work already approved will cost something like £30 million, but the programme is being kept constantly under review, and it may well be that expenditure on a far greater scale may be necessary if we are to play our proper part. The Bill has been very carefully considered by our experts and by the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities, who has such a great knowledge of this subject. But, of course, the Government take full responsibility for it. Therefore, I claim that this Bill is necessary, both to fulfil our international obligations, and for the protection of our people at home.
I should now like to turn to the Clauses. Clause I is a general Clause which designates the Minister of Supply as the appropriate Minister responsible for controlling the development and use of atomic energy and for exercising control. In Clauses 2 and 3 the Minister is invested with statutory powers to produce and use atomic energy, to carry out research, and give financial assistance to other persons engaged in this work. It is very important that the work here should be coordinated with work being done at the universities, and we are giving assistance to the universities. In Clauses 4 and 5 there is power to call for information and to inspect premises, and there is, particularly, the power of entry and inspection under Clause 5, which, I think, if we were dealing with some other subject, might appear very drastic. It is unusual: we are dealing

with an unusual subject. I think it essential the Government must be able to inform themselves fully of unauthorised activities, not, as I said before, only in the interests of this country, but in view of the fact that we are working to try to get international control in which we must play our full part.
Clause 6 empowers the Minister to search for the sources of minerals and to compensate for damage done; and Clause 7 contains provision for the compulsory acquisition of rights to work those minerals. We put those Clauses in for better security. I am bound to say that, as far as my information goes, it seems unlikely we shall find in these islands any great stores of minerals, either of uranium or anything of the kind, in order to produce fissile material; but, obviously, the Bill would be incomplete if it did not contain provision of this sort. The power may, as I say, never be used, but we do not know what developments may come. Therefore, we have only proposed the general powers for compensation to be exercised in individual cases under Statutory Orders. In Clauses 8 and 9 we have powers of compulsory acquisition of all sources of materials, minerals containing them, plants and contracts, with, again, provision for compensation. Clause 10 provides licensing arrangements to control the activities by private concerns, and I call attention particularly to Subsection (2), which places on the Minister the duty of securing, as far as practicable, by licence, that the necessary minerals, substances and plants are available for scientific and ordinary commercial purposes. We are anxious that research should be encouraged—not merely not impeded, but encouraged—and research is being undertaken by universities and by commercial firms under contracts placed and financed by the Government.
I draw special attention to Clause 11, which places restrictions on the disclosure of information. The production of atomic energy involves very complicated processes. It is really a major industrial effort, and until we can get international control, what is sometimes called the industrial "know-how" must be kept under control. When I was in America the declaration made by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada and myself laid down this policy: until we can get the introduction of effective and forcible safeguards, and we all


hope that international arrangements will make strict secrecy unnecessary, while we can meanwhile encourage the dissemination of basic scientific information, there must be power to prevent the dissemination of information as to what is called the "know-how."
We are presented with a rather difficult drafting problem as to where exactly to draw the line, where to get the security we need without impeding scientific research, and the conclusion we reached was that we should define in the Bill the information which should not be communicated concerning the energy plants, what they do and how they work, with provision for excluding information about plant in use for purposes other than atomic energy provided that the connection with atomic energy is not disclosed. Our Amendment is on the Paper, and will be moved by the Minister in Committee, directing the Minister not to withhold consent to disclosure where he is satisfied that the information proposed to be communicated is not of importance for purposes of defence. That will enable us to delete Subsection (4). Our desire has been to make the thing watertight by giving the Minister full powers, including power to authorise a relaxation in particular cases. Also we desire to take away the onus which, as the Bill is drafted, rested on persons requiring them to give information without knowing quite whether the information was right. As the Clause will be amended in Committee, that onus will be on the Minister. We also provide that where information has once been made available to the general public, if it is not in contravention of the Bill, it is freed from further control. We expect that in course of time there will gradually emerge classes of information which may be published, and then exemption orders can be made under Subsection (2). As a matter of fact today the great bulk of the technical information is necessarily in Government hands. It has been the result of work in Government establishments or under Government control, and there is there, therefore, the additional safeguard of the Official Secrets Act. If hon. Members will examine this Clause I think they will find that it hits the mean between not giving away information that will endanger our security and, at the same time, not being unduly restrictive of scientific research.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the Prime Minister deal with the point that, instead of accepting the distinction which he pointed out earlier between fundamental research on the one hand and industrial "know-how" on the other, the Clause is now so drafted as to cover the whole field, both fundamental research and industrial "know-how" as well?

The Prime Minister: I do not think so, but perhaps the hon. Member will take it up later.
Clause 12 deals with inventions and patents, and gives power to control and restrict the publication of information about atomic energy patent applications, pending notification of the Minister of Supply, who can inspect documents and decide whether the subject matter is of military importance. If it is, the prohibition on publication will stand; if not, the inventor will be free to exploit his invention and the inventor, if there is a ban, can still offer his invention to the Government. Subsection (4) deals with the application outside the United Kingdom, and Subsection (7) enables the Government to use for the purposes of the Crown any atomic energy invention or patent on terms to be agreed or arbitrated. That is in line with existing legislation on other inventions. Since the Bill was introduced and printed, consideration has been given to the question of whether some compensation should be paid to inventors who develop inventions which the Crown finds it necessary to suppress, but does not itself use, and an Amendment will be moved in Committee empowering the Minister to pay such measure of compensation as will ensure that the inventor is not out of pocket.
I think the remaining Clauses are of a general and formal nature. Since the Bill was published we have had the benefit of a good deal of informed criticism. It has been very carefully considered, and this is reflected in Amendments which are mostly of a very minor character, apart from those to which I have referred, and the Government will propose those at the proper stage. I do not think there is need for me to say more on this Bill except to commend it to the House. The House is in the presence of an invention, a discovery, of most far-reaching possibilities, and in those circumstances it is quite clear


that its development must be guided in the national interest. The Government must have adequate powers of control, they must not hinder the freedom of scientists, indeed they must facilitate it. It is on those broad lines, of ensuring safety for this country and at the same time not unduly hampering research, that this Bill has been drafted.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: The Prime Minister, in the very brief speech with which he has favoured us, said that this Bill was not dictated by any doctrinal considerations. I do not know if those were his exact words, but that was, I take it, his meaning. Of course we are perfectly willing to accept that assurance, but at the same time it is very remarkable how closely this Bill, in its general form, does resemble the general mass of legislation which has been put before this Parliament in recent months by His Majesty's Government, and I think the House is entitled to some explanation as to why, on this occasion, we on this side of the House propose to support the Bill instead of opposing it.
This Atomic Energy Bill resembles with extraordinary fidelity the general run of Socialist legislation. Whether it is legislation for taking over the mines, for housing, for health, or whatever it may be, the fidelity to the pattern is really quite remarkable. In this Bill, as in all other Bills, the Government establish a monopoly. In this Bill, as in those other Bills, the Government endow a supposedly all-wise Minister with absolute and final authority. Here, as in other Bills, vistas are opened up of forms to be filled in, declarations to be made, inspectors to be placated, and so on, and compensation, not very clearly defined, is to be paid for those whose rights or property is wrested from them by the State. It is very much on the old model. Nevertheless, we on this side of the House propose to give our support to this Bill, even though it does resemble so very closely some other horses which have come out of the same stable and have not been conspicuously successful at recent race meetings.
I think there are two main reasons why the House should give a Second Reading to this Bill. No layman can say with absolute finality and dogmatism that there will never be any physical, mechanical answer to the atomic bomb. It is con-

ceivable, I suppose, that the same ingenuity which produced the bomb may, in time, produce its antidote. No one can say that there will never be an antidote. What we can say, and must say now, is that it seems unlikely in the physical field that there will ever be, as far as we can see, a complete antidote to this weapon. We are therefore left to look for a solution for defence—because we must have a defence—not in the physical field but in the political field. The only final defence I can see in the political field is some valid international agreement for the establishment of an international authority for the control of this new weapon. That is really the only ultimate defence. It is clear that it is going to be impossible to establish international control unless first we have established national control. This Bill is therefore the essential prerequisite of the final solution, if ever in fact we do reach a final solution. That is one reason why I suggest that the House, irrespective of party, must support the Bill this afternoon.
The second reason is this. We are at present in a kind of interim position. We have not yet achieved a valid international agreement, no international authority has been set up, and with the limited information at my disposal I cannot see that there is any immediate prospect of such an authority being set up. And so we are left in this position. From every point of view, from the point of view of the economic, medical or scientific development of this invention, as much as from the point of view of defence, we must ensure as far as we humanly can that we in this country, our scientists and our industry, are abreast of anything that is being done in any other country. That for the moment is the only solution which is left open to us during this interim period pending the establishment of an international authority. There is no other solution which I can see.
It is true that to be left to one's own resources in this way, to try to develop as best we can our own resources, is an unsatisfactory solution of this terribly grave problem. It is a solution which is fraught with immense possibilities of danger in the future, but nevertheless it is the only solution that is to our hand at the present time. Therefore we must devote ourselves with as much energy as we can command to putting ourselves and keeping ourselves right in the forefront


in this field of development of atomic energy. If we are to do that, if we are to avail ourselves even of this temporary solution, it is clear that the Government of the day must assume final and absolute responsibility for the defence of the citizens of this country against the atomic bomb. There is no getting away from that. At the same time it is clear that the whole resources of the Government must be behind the research and industrial development of this new invention.
It is very easy to say that what I have been saying is, in a sense, an incitement to a new armaments race. I ask the House to believe that the idea of an armaments race, especially in this field, is absolutely abhorrent to me, and I am sure that it must be abhorrent to the whole House, but if there is one prospect more alarming than the prospect of an armaments race, it is the prospect of an armaments race in which we come in last. We have had some experience of that in recent years. It was extremely disagreeable and inconvenient in 1940, and I think it would be even more disagreeable and even more inconvenient in 1950, or 1960, if we found ourselves in the same position. For that reason I say that we must strain every nerve to see that we are abreast and more than abreast of everything that is being done in this field anywhere else in the world.
I think we are agreed that a Bill of this kind is justified and necessary. I think the Prime Minister has made out his case, but to what extent does this Bill give the Government the powers which they must have if they are to fulfil their elementary duty to the people of this country? I must confess, on looking through it for the first time, that it seemed to me to be a Bill peculiarly negative and restrictive in its general intentions. There are endless injunctions and prohibitions, endless lists of what cannot be done, and comparatively little said of what can be done and of what must be done. Taking Clauses 10 and 11, which I suppose in a sense are the crux of the whole Bill, we find a reference in Clause 10 to research which seems to be somewhat perfunctory—there are other references to research in Clauses 2 and 3, and so on. In Clause 10 we find what the Minister can do in the way of prohibition, and in Clause 11 we find a list of all those things which cannot be com-

municated without the consent of the Minister. At a first glance it seems to be not unduly restrictive but to have an entirely negative atmosphere about it.
I think that in a case of this kind first impressions are apt to be misleading, and I can see that it is easier to define some things by exclusion rather than by inclusion. It is easier to make a list of the things the Minister must prohibit than to make a list of the things he must encourage. It is easier to make a list of the things about which information must not be disclosed than to make a catalogue of the things about which it would be wise and prudent to disclose information. I am prepared to believe that the Bill, as it stands, is nothing like as negative and restrictive as it appeared to me to be when I picked it up for the first time.
On this question of the control of information, we have to recognise that the Washington Declaration of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States which, as I understand, still governs the basis of Government policy in this matter, has introduced a certain conflict. The idea that you shall disclose basic scientific information and, at the same time, withhold the disclosure of information relating to technical and industrial application of atomic energy involves us in a certain conflict and the question is: How has this conflict been resolved in the Bill? Most of as would agree that if we are to make progress in this field in this country, it is essential that we should have as free an exchange of basic scientific information as possible. The scientist is not a man who works and lives in a vacuum. He makes headway by consulting with his fellow scientists, picking their brains and letting them pick his. One has only to look at the list of the distinguished scientists in this country, the United States, Germany, Italy, Russia, Denmark and in almost every other country to see how necessary this exchange of information is for development in this field. If any of us believes that we can safeguard our own position by putting an absolute damper on all exchange of information he will find himself sadly mistaken. There is no doubt that one most important element in scientific development is this kind of free interchange of ideas, a kind of chain reaction in the intellectual sphere, as distinct from the physical sphere. I do not think that anyone would deny that. At the same


time, it is absolutely essential, until the general international atmosphere is far clearer than it is today, that we should maintain any advantage that we may have in the sphere of technical application, and that there should be no disclosure of that side of the picture at all. But there is this conflict between those two ideas, and I must say that on reading the Bill again it seems to me that the conflict has been resolved as well as it can be resolved by the Measure which is now before us.
There is one other point which seems of enormous importance when we are discussing scientists and the way they behave. I am quite certain that scientists cannot be treated as civil servants, and if this Bill is operated and administered in such a way as to attempt to dragoon our scientists into the atmosphere of a Government Department I am quite sure that the result will be absolutely disastrous. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that there is no such intention, and that scientists will be able to have as much freedom for research as if this Bill did not exist. With regard to research, as I said there is comparatively little reference to it in the Bill although, after all, one cannot expect much positive enthusiasm from a Parliamentary draftsman. He has too much of it to do. There are sufficient powers for the Minister to encourage research if he is prepared to do so. Our powers in this House are limited. We can give the Minister powers, but we cannot compel him to use them. We have no means of doing that. We can take the horse to the water but we have no means of compelling him to drink. And whether the Bill is effective for its purposes depends far less on what is in it, than on the judgment, energy, and good sense with which it is administered by the Minister and his Department, and the Government as a whole.
This Bill, by itself, will not provide us with protection against the atom bomb. It will not ensure that we are in the forefront of scientific and industrial development. That depends entirely upon the Government. Of course, that applies to the whole range of matters with which this Administration is concerning itself. When the Government assume powers of legislation over the whole range of national life, the important thing is not so much what is in the Bill as to how

the Government will administer it. That applies to houses, coal, or health, or whatever it may be; but there is this difference here, and it is a vital difference If the Minister of Fuel and Power, for instance, through his ineptitude or irresponsibility, brings ruin to the coalmining industry, that will cause great distress in countless homes in this country; it will lower the standard of life of our people; it will lessen the influence of this country in the world. But the disaster will not be absolutely irretrievable. In time, the spirit of our people will reassert itself, and things will be better. We shall climb the hill again. But if the Government are negligent in their duty in this field, then the disaster, if it comes, will be final, absolute and irretrievable. Therefore, I say that everything depends on the energy which is shown by the Government in that matter.
I think we should be wise, then, to ask ourselves what the evidence is that the Government are pursuing this matter with the necessary determination and drive. There must be a lot of things happening —at least I hope so—which cannot be disclosed, but on the evidence we have today, have we reason to suppose that the Government are really aware of the urgency of this problem, that they understand that this problem of controlling atomic energy is far more important than anything else with which they are dealing, that everything, including housing and social security, depends on a solution being found? Are the Government pushing this thing with all the determination in their power? I wish I could, for my own part, give a completely reassuring answer to these questions. I must say that I am not satisfied that, in the general field, the Government are using the energy and the decision which are necessary.
What is our position today, so far as we know it—our interim position? Our interim position is that we, the United States and Canada have a certain advantage. We do not know how big that advantage is. In terms of years, it can be measured only by a few years—a very few years. One of these years has already passed—it is 15 months or so, since the bomb dropped, and it has taken 15 months for the Government to produce this Bill. I agree, of course, that this Bill is not a final solution. It is only a start; but it is, I think, some months since the MacMahon


Act passed through the Congress of the United States. It is months since a Bill of this kind came before Parliament in Canada. I find it very difficult to understand why it has taken so long to produce this Bill and to bring it to the House of Commons for Second Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "On 1st May."] The Bill was produced on 1st May, but I find it difficult to understand why it has taken so long to bring it here for Second Reading.
I would like to say something about the form of the Bill itself. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous or in any way offensive to him, but it seems to be a little bit odd that this field, which is so tremendously important, should be entrusted to a Minister of comparatively junior rank, a Minister who, I understand, is not a member of the Cabinet. I find it very difficult to understand, if the Government really accept the overwhelming importance of this subject, why it has not been entrusted to some Minister, whose powers may not be greater, but whose position and authority are greater than the position and authority of a Minister of Supply, who is not in the Cabinet, in a peacetime Government. One has only to contrast the position with that which existed under the last Government. Then, this matter was put in the charge of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who was, first, Lord President, and then Chancellor of the Exchequer. That seemed to give it the kind of priority which is required, but I think—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me offensive because I am not being offensive to him personally —that it is a strange thing that this whole field should be handed over—

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite understands. I have always kept the general supervision of the broad matter in my own hands as Prime Minister. It is the development side that naturally goes to the Minister of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman must not think that this has been handed over to a junior Minister. It is a major consideration of the Government, but some Minister has to be entrusted with the actual physical working which is going on, and that, naturally, comes under the Department of the Minister of Supply.

Mr. Law: I thank the Prime Minister for his intervention, which does something to ease my mind on this matter. I am very glad indeed to hear that this is regarded as a subject which is so important that it must be within the more or less constant purview, as I understand it, of the Prime Minister himself.
The Financial Memorandum of the Bill says—and the Prime Minister repeated it —that while the expenditure cannot be foreseen, the present figure, so far as it can be foreseen, is in the neighbourhood of £30 million. I do not know whether that figure is adequate or not, but what I have been given to understand is that in the United States, something like £200 million has already been spent. It would be unfair and unreasonable to make a contrast between those two figures, because a great deal of the £200 million must have been spent in the actual production of the bomb for war purposes.

Mr. Blackburn: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has read the documents which show that 2,000 million dollars were spent, all upon the production of bombs. Is he referring to what has occurred since the war in mentioning this figure of £200 million?

Mr. Law: I was explaining that it would be unfair to contrast the two figures without qualification, because, as I said, and as the hon. Member has just stressed, the great bulk of that expenditure must have been in connection with the war. I would very much doubt whether, looking at the magnitude of the problem and the urgency of it, the figure of £30 million to be spent in the foreseeable future is adequate.

The Prime Minister: I said that that was the amount proposed to be spent at present. There is more coming on. The proposals are put at that expenditure by our advisers, and up to the present it is £30 million; but as I said at the time, I am afraid that we shall have to spend a great deal more than that.

Mr. Law: I am very glad indeed to hear what the Prime Minister has just stated. I would like to make this point: The proposals are put up for expenditure in the normal course under Government machinery, with effective Treasury control, and it sometimes takes a long time for such expenditure to be sanctioned. I


hone that in this case, if there is to be any expenditure which looks like being useful and profitable in this field, there will be the minimum of red tape and Treasury restriction upon that expenditure. By and large, I cannot see, looking over the past 15 months, that the Government have given this subject the priority which it deserves. It seems to me that, for reasons which I have tried to give to the House, this field of atomic energy and the exploitation of atomic energy just has to take its turn through the mill with other things—with housing, coal, bread-rationing, the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, or whatever it may be. If so, I say that that is not good enough, because this thing, as I said a moment or two ago, is far more important than anything else in the Government's programme. Unless we can find a means of protecting ourselves from this force, of controlling this enormous, this incalculable force which we have released, there will be no security either social or otherwise and there will not be any houses, even those we have got, let alone the dream houses that exist in the election literature of hon. Members opposite. I ask the Government to remember that. This matter ought to have a priority far above anything else. I cannot see much evidence—although of course I have very little information—that it has been given that priority today.
The Prime Minister, a few moments ago, said that he thought that there was not as much realisation in this country of the dangers of this weapon or of its possibilities as there was in the United States. I think that is true. It seems to me that, looking back over the past 15 months, a very decided change has come over the public mood in relation to the whole problem of atomic energy. When the atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima, there was a sudden shock, a sudden feeling of enlightenment. I think we all realised that we were faced with a revolution of a kind which is absolutely unsurpassed in recorded human history. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power rather fancies himself, I imagine, as a kind of amateur revolutionary, but by the side of men like Rutherford, Chadwick, Dempster, Millikan and Frisch, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power does not even get through the qualifying round. This is a revolution, and we all recognised it as a revolution 15

months ago. In that mood every kind of solution was propounded, many of them, even most of them, wildly impracticable. The people of this country understood that we were at the cross roads, that we had a choice to make. We were perhaps unduly afraid of the bomb. But that mood has passed. The tragedy is that nothing seems to have taken its place. We seem in a sense to have dropped the bomb into that abyss of nihlism which is one of the most bitter consequences of the war, which is perhaps the inevitable consequence of a civilisation like our own, which is devoted to grossly material ends and very little else. We seem to have accepted the position with a kind of weary fatalism. I think that is extremely dangerous.
We cannot accept this position fatalistically. We have got to deal with it. The only mistake we made 15 months ago was in giving way to panic, because fear has never solved any problem. Fear has never been a constructive force in human affairs. We try to forget about the bomb, but we cannot forget about it. We try to push it to the back of our minds, but it is always there, and it always will be there until we find some solution. This Bill is the first step towards that solution. It is only a diminutive step. It is hardly a step at all. It is only like the tape being released for the runners to start. But it is the first step. We have taken that first step. Whether it leads to anything or not will depend, in my judgment, entirely upon whether the Government implement this Bill with their full energy, whether they give to this problem an absolute and first priority. If they do not do that, then neither this Bill nor anything else will avail us very much.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill, said that he did not think there was sufficient awareness in this country of the destructive possibility of atomic power. I was glad to hear him say that, and I hope this Bill is the beginning of a change in that respect. The Bill raises big issues, for the future of humanity is at stake. I welcome this opportunity of making a few observations. In my view, the Government should have taken this step. I desire to place on record our appreciation of the work of that small number of Englishmen who worked so hard and so long at Trafford Park, Manchester, and


at Rugby. I refer, in particular, to Professors Rutherford, Chadwick, Cockcroft and Blackett, Drs. Allibone, Craggs, Milne and Wilkinson, and Messrs. Elce, Smethurst, Haine and Starling. I am sorry I do not know their Christian names, for we who belong to the ordinary people, when we respect people and desire to place on record our appreciation of their service in life, always refer to them by their Christian names, in contrast to what takes place in the House and other places. I thought that, in view of the claims now being made in periodicals in the United States of America, in particular, I—and I hope others will associate themselves in this—ought to place on record what we owe to those men.
The utilisation of nuclear energy and the perfecting of the atomic bomb were the result of collective research and collective engineering. I agree wholly with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) in his remarks about the importance of scientists having an opportunity of meeting one another and collaborating with one another. Where the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake was in limiting that need to scientists, for we have now reached a period in man's development where it is essential that men should cooperate throughout the world. Only collective action will now save the world from an atomic arms race. Relatively, the people in our time have made the greatest sacrifices in history in order to defeat Fascism, and now they find themselves in a world situation in which, because of atomic energy, they feel they are in the grip of forces that, for the time being, they are unable to control. They are in a mood of frustration and anxious urgency, and the British Labour Government, with its huge majority, was not elected to acquiesce in this situation. In view of what is at stake, the Government should have complete control of research, development, and production. I ask the Minister to be good enough to reply to this question: Is it a fact that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have made, and are still making, large grants? If so, what do those grants amount to, and where does the expenditure of public money end and private start? Seeing that there is a large amount of development being carried on by private enterprise, are those grants being used for the

purpose of increasing the profits of those who are carrying out research, development and production? I have before me a letter from the Association of Scientific Workers. They make several proposals. I do not wish to delay the House by mentioning those proposals, but I hope the Minister and the House will give consideration to those proposals before we reach the Committee stage on Friday.
I read in the "Manchester Guardian" on 9th September that there is widespread interest in America in the news that atomic energy for industrial use is now available at a cost only 25 per cent. higher than anything produced by coal, and the technicians say that this cost is certain to be materially lowered soon. In view of our serious fuel position, are we as advanced as the Americans in regard to the probability of using atomic energy for other purposes than those for which it has been used up to now? In my view, we should have been told more to-day about the vast potentialities there are for man's benefit as a result of the perfecting of nuclear energy.
Unfortunately up to now this country in particular and the world in general have paid too much attention to the destructive possibilities and too little to the enormous possibilities for man's benefit. Already—and this needs to be stressed in our Debate today—enormous progress has been made in our country in the harnessing of atomic power for human welfare. The finest X-ray equipment was used at St. Bartholomew's hospital; the rays of this equipment were obtained from a million volt X-ray tube. Progress has been made in Manchester with a new betatron which steps up the voltage to 20 million, and at the present time a 200 million volt betatron is being built in Trafford Park.
Thanks to nuclear physics the scientists, the engineers, and the medical men are collaborating and cooperating—unlike some politicians who are strutting about and thinking they know it all. Man has arrived at a period when he must make progress by cooperation, and the men who are responsible day by day, for making centuries of headway, as we have done during the recent war, no longer take up that attitude. They are humble and far seeing men, who realise that we are living in the days of great scientific development. Thanks to these men we are now


in sight of this development being used to deal with diseases and the saving of life. I have some photographs in my pocket which show how this development has taken place, and I hope the Minister will embark upon an educational campaign in order to let the world see that this country was in the forefront of this development before the war and that we made an enormous contribution during the war. We should not be leaving it to the United States to claim all the credit for this development.
I want to ask the Minister—and I hope he will reply—whether ample resources are at the disposal of our scientists, medical men, and engineers to enable them to keep in the forefront. That is the great danger I see now. Millions and millions are being expended on research by several of the greatest Powers of the world. Are we placing the same resources at the disposal of our great men —and they need to be described as great men—serving in a humble way, as they are doing day by day, in engineering, in the universities, and in other research centres? Are we proceeding as fast as we should to enable this energy to be used to save life? Within the past two years I have had certain personal experiences which make me realise what we owe to the medical men and the scientists and I want those resources to be placed at the disposal of our medical men, so that they can save thousands of humble lives in this country, rather than that such means should be lost as they have been for far too long.
I do not accept altogether what I am now going to quote but there is a great deal in it. H. G. Wells said:
The fate of the world depends upon a race between education and catastrophe. In view of the atomic bomb catastrophe is winning, since science and technology are developing more rapidly than man's ability to control them.
At the last General Election the people of our country elected a Government that should carry out a policy of complete national control and it is time we were seeing more results in this respect. I read in the "New York Herald Tribune" of 16th August that constant research is being carried out in atomic energy in the United States. The United States Army are testing German V-2 rockets, and their Air Force are testing rocket powered projectiles 10 feet long. Atomic energy as

a means of propulsion will be a reality in five years, they say. Their naval experts envisage new types of ships—long, thin, pencil-like vessels, with knife-edged bows and sterns—propelled by atomic energy at great speed.
I am still only relatively young but I have been involved in two world wars. The first war, we were told, was a war to end war. During the last war we were promised a new world. Now the ordinary people are asking, "Where are we going now?" I supported our war effort one hundred per cent. and I am confident that that was the right policy, but I now stand here a little disillusioned after reading the American publication, "Dinner at the White House." The "Manchester Guardian" of 9th September said that General Eisenhower was to have conferences with the Imperial General Staff when he visited England. It was understood that close Anglo-American cooperation in the development of guided missiles was being sought. We heard a great deal last week about General Eisenhower's visit, but nothing about the report to which I have referred. I would ask the Minister whether that report was correct.
I recently read an American publication entitled "The Scientific Monthly" which stated that progress in science in Russia during the war was greater than we expected, and that, in some fields, the Russians are leading the world. In the past I would have said, "Reactionaries beware," but in the atomic age we shall all be involved, for with atomic and other forms of warfare the devastation will result in the annihilation of millions. On 16th November last year President Truman and the Prime Minister said that the only complete protection for the civilised world from the destructive use of scientific knowledge lies in the prevention of war. That was a relatively long time ago now, and I think that more should have been said by spokesmen of the Government in this respect during the ensuing ten months. The indictment upon which the Nazis were sentenced has created a new international code, and I want to ask the Government whether they accept this new code: "Sentenced for crimes against humanity." All politicians who are supporting policies that may lead to war might consider their position in relation to this new international code.


Do the Big Four accept it? Then why all this expenditure on armaments?
The people are hoping that the international Atomic Commission will reach agreement upon atomic control. If they do, then the Big Four should meet to consider what they can do about this enormous expenditure of the people's wealth and energy that is taking place on armaments, and I am hoping that, after the speech made by the Prime Minister today, he is going to speak out more upon this question. How much longer are we to leave the initiative in international affairs to other countries? How much longer are we to leave the field of international politics to General Smuts and to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)? How much longer are we to be dragged at the heels of the United States of America in international politics? During the recent war, the British people made an enormous contribution to the saving of mankind. It entitles us to speak out in international affairs. I welcomed the speech made today by the Prime Minister. I welcomed in particular the phrase he used to the effect that there was not sufficient awareness in this country of the destructive possibilities of this enormous energy. I hope that this is the beginning of the Government's initiative in international affairs, in order that the people of this country, and mankind in general, may use this new nuclear energy for the purpose of saving life. I hope we shall not drift into an arms race in atomic energy, in which more of the energy of the people themselves will be used than has ever been the case before. I, therefore, welcome the introduction of the Bill, and hope that it will be the beginning of a great step in this country in the progress of man.

5.2 p.m.

Commander Noble: Having just had the privilege of representing this House as one of the Government observers at the Bikini atomic bomb tests, I am glad of the opportunity of saying a few words in this Debate. On our mission to the Pacific it was necessary for the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and I to share a cabin in an American warship for some two months. When we were asked by our United Nations colleagues how we managed to do this without any apparent disagreement we used

to reply, rather aptly we thought, that we considered that atomic energy and the atomic bomb were above party. I hope that any criticism that may creep into my remarks may be accepted in that spirit. I realise the vital importance of this subject to this country in particular.
As is only natural upon returning from such a mission I find that practically everybody I meet asks me, "What did you think of the atomic bomb?" What is really surprising is the fact that few of those people—and here I emphasise what the Prime Minister has said—have already arranged in their minds, and are already certain of, what I am going to say. Some people are prepared to hear me belittle the bomb. Others are prepared for what I am really going to say, which is, what devastating weapons atomic bombs are. I fully, realise the need for this Bill. We are trying to take our place at Lake Success on the Atomic Commission of the United Nations, and it is only right that we should put our own house in order first.
However, I would emphasise what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), that it seems a great pity that the Bill should have been so much delayed. It was read a First time on 1st May, when an announcement was made that it would be read a Second time on 6th May. Here we are, some five months later, reading it a Second time, and with all the stages of the Bill having to be hurried through the House in a few days. I hope that this remark will not be looked upon as unfair, but it prompts me to say that I only hope that this does not indicate the degree of importance that the Government will attach to this subject. It was very reassuring to hear the wise counsel given by the Prime Minister when introducing the Bill. I was also very glad to hear what the Prime Minister said about research. When I read the Bill I was encouraged to read in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the objects of the Bill were:
to empower the Minister of Supply to promote the development of atomic energy and to confer upon him powers of control,
et cetera, but when one turned to the text of the Bill, to find some encouragement to private research and some planned Government research, one found only a repetition of the words which I have just quoted.
It is a very great pity that more was not put in 10 the Bill on the lines already indicated from the Government Front Bench in this Debate. There is no mention of private research, although perhaps it is implied in Clause 3 (1), which gives the Minister power to grant certain loans, and perhaps also in Clause 10 (2). As has been stated by my right hon. Friend, the rest of the Bill is purely negative, and consists of powers of inspection, compulsory acquisition, control of production, restrictions upon disclosure of information, and penalties. Controls and regulations of that sort are necessary, but there appears to be no balance on the other side in the form of encouragement. I feel that much encouragement could have been given to research. The Minister might have mentioned that he had a plan for private research and a plan for Government-conducted research.
I make these points for two reasons. First of all, let us remember that it was not luck that enabled German scientists to make a discovery in 1938 which led the world to know very soon that atomic bombs were possible; that it was not luck that enabled Allied scientists, supported by foresight and vision at the top, to use the first atomic bomb in New Mexico on 15th July, 1945. It was not luck, but years of research and hard work. We have played our part in that work and we must go on playing our part in order that we may keep pace with, and I hope overtake, the research of other countries. We must go on also for what I think is a very important point, in order that we may take an adequate place upon the United Nations Atomic Convention when, as we all hope it will be, it is finally set up. We must not be a sleeping partner in any such Convention. We can maintain our position in that Convention only by having the requisite scientific background.
These remarks lead up to a request that, in the new set-up, Government and private research will not be hampered by red tape. I do not speak for any particular scientist or group of scientists, but I feel that scientists do not want to be civil servants. They do not want to have to clock-in and they do not want to clock-out. They want to work in an academic atmosphere and, as far as possible, to run their own show. I was lucky enough recently to visit the University of California. I was much impressed by the

atmosphere there. It is a magnificent university and, in that academic atmosphere and those delightful surroundings, great work is being done, with Government backing, with a 184-inch cyclotron.
It must be remembered that some scientists are good administrators and that some are not. There are scientists who specialise in theory, there are others who specialise in the more material side. It is Marconi's name that is always associated with radio, but I think I am right in saying that it was Maxwell who was the first expounder of the theory that Marconi put into practice. There are scientists whose work is inspired, and dedicated to science, and there are also those who quite naturally expect some adequate financial reward. There are also those, I am glad to say, who combine both these qualities. To take an analogy of State research which gives some idea of the delicacy of the problem, suppose the Government instructed all the leading musicians in the country to compose, produce and play a symphony, and told them that on no account were they ever to exhibit it privately for their own advantage and that all results, financial and otherwise, belonged to His Majesty's Government. We can but conjecture on the result, but I am very doubtful whether it would be harmony, and I do not think that scientists are any less temperamental than musicians.
To sum up these points, let us hope that our new institution at Harwell and other institutions that grow up will have the atmosphere of encouragement in which scientists want to work. With regard again to private research, I hope there will be every encouragement, the pooling of as much information as possible, as few regulations as possible, financial help, and what is very important these days, help in obtaining the necessary equipment. I did not quite hear what the Prime Minister said about the committee of experts to advise the Minister and perhaps the Minister will explain that a little more clearly when he sums up. We all know that the committee which has been going for some time under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) is still in existence, but I am not quite sure how that committee now stands Is it the committee to which the Prime Minister referred, or is the Minister of


Supply to have some other committee of scientists to advise him? As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington said, we all have great respect for the great knowledge of the Minister of Supply in the many roles he has to play, even perhaps in the iron and steel industry, but in a great subject like this there should be a named advisory committee. Also, is there to be any standing military advisory committee, using the word "military" to embrace all three Services? Atomic weapons, and the atomic bomb in particular, will have a great effect on decisions made in the future by the three Services, and I hope there will be a fully organised co-operation and agreement between the Ministry and the Services. No doubt the new Minister of Defence will play a large part in this new set-up.
May I say a word or two about the international side? I was very glad that the hon Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) was able to raise this subject on the Adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess but I was surprised to read a statement made in that Debate by the then Minister of State. When referring to the American and Russian plans for the control of atomic energy, he said:
His Majesty's Government for their part accept both these plans. They believe that they need to be fused."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 1391.]
That statement caused considerable surprise on the other side of the Atlantic. H.M. Government may well see both sides of the picture and hope that they may be brought together, but it is a little difficult to "accept" two plans that have a fundamental difference in timing. I hope that representatives of H.M. Government at Lake Success are making every effort to fuse these two plans and will take some practical steps, especially as since then the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Commission have unanimously agreed that they do not find any basis in the available scientific facts for supposing that effective control is not technologically feasible.
Atomic energy in peace can bring great benefits, but there is no doubt in my mind that if ever there is another war it will be a war with atomic weapons; and having at Bikini seen the destruction wrought by two bombs in the very infancy of the atomic age. I have some

idea of what that would mean. This may sound a platitude, but it is most important for this country to realise the implications. This has been emphasised by several speakers in this Debate, including the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), and we should do all we can in the international field to try to make war impossible, and also to control atomic power, and at home to make quite certain that we take the lead in research in all the fields of atomic power. It may take some time. We have to build— buildings, equipment and indeed personnel—but I am quite certain that we shall succeed. Mr. Baruch said the other day in rather a different context that when a man learns to say "A" he can if he wishes learn the rest of the alphabet. On this occasion we might say that "A" stands for "Atom" and "B" stands for "Bomb." What the rest of the alphabet contains we do not know, but let us make quite certain that we make every effort to find out.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Ranger: I have served an apprenticeship of a full 12 months in this House before attempting to address it for the first time but I find the need for the indulgence usually extended by the House to an hon. Member undergoing that ordeal—at least, some measure of the usual indulgence, not the full measure, because some of my remarks are on the verge of being controversial. I welcome this Bill as an essential step towards the acceptance of international control of released atomic energy. It is only in full control of this new and revolutionary power that we can find any satisfaction. I will not take the time of the House in outlining the arguments in favour of a national control of released atomic energy as outlined in the Bill. We have heard that it is generally accepted, and I will not repeat arguments for a point which already has general acceptance in this House. I therefore propose to use the full time at my disposal for points of the Bill against which I wish to make a humble protest.
There are points in the Bill which seem to me to be entirely at variance with the declared objective of the Bill. The Prime Minister said that the Bill was to cover the period between now and the setting up of an international authority, and to


enable us to take our part and to accept the authority of the international control board. It seems to me that in Clauses 11 and 13 we are going back to the old national rivalry in armaments, upon a destructive weapon still in its infancy, but still of such known destructive power as to frighten the whole world. The power of released atomic energy has been expressed in an official publication in the United States as a revolutionary weapon of war, especially when used as a weapon of strategic bombardment aimed at the destruction of enemy cities and the eradication of their populations. That seems to me to be not so much a description of a weapon of war as a statement of mass murder, and I believe that we, as a nation, have already declared our acceptance of the idea that this weapon of mass destruction of human life and property should be outlawed.
The Bill, in Clauses 11 and 13, proposes to retain secrets—not, I take it, of the peaceful development of this new power, but to make official secrets of the development and production that we are to operate in this country in relation to the use of the atomic bomb, as a weapon of destruction. This is a denial of the Prime Minister's own declaration—in accord with that made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada—that the information concerning the use of released atomic energy should be spread among the nations of the world. It is in defiance of the fact that it is now generally agreed among the nations that this new destructive weapon shall be outlawed. Therefore, the use of an atomic bomb is an illegal act under the law of nations, the law of civilisation, the law of international peace, and if the bomb, as a finished product, is to be illegal, then surely steps for the manufacture of that illegal weapon of war are also illegal, and if our secrecy Clauses are intended to cover the operation of illegal manufacture of illegal weapons, it is better that those Clauses should never appear, and that the Government should never have that power.
Furthermore, in the sphere of international conferences, in the struggle to achieve peace agreements between the nations, we are suffering from an overdose of international suspicion. It is dogging every conference, hindering every agreement that is attempted, and

here we are being asked to legislate Clauses in an important and essential Bill, which will add to that suspicion and which are themselves, founded upon suspicion of the intentions of other nations and the possibility of espionage by other nations. There is no need for secrecy in the development of atomic energy as a peaceful weapon; there is every need for it—and that is why the power is taken —if we are to use this new development as a weapon of warfare, if there is a possibility of using it as a weapon for the destruction of enemy cities and the eradication of their populations. If we take control of the use of atomic energy and if, at the same time, we declare, by publicly announcing it in this House and by withdrawing the secrecy Clauses from this Bill, that we have no intention in this country of adopting the release of atomic energy as a weapon of war and, therefore, will have no secrets to hide from other nations, we shall adopt the full possibilities of this new development for peaceful means. We can then be confident that there will be in international assemblies and international conferences a reinstatement of that commonsense which will make the statesmen of the world convinced that there must be no more war, that there must be no possibility of a war in which the weapons will be atomic bombs or further and bigger developments of these drastic methods of mass destruction.
Then the secrecy Clauses are to be condemned not only because they would have the natural effect of obstructing the full development of the utilisation of released atomic energy, but because there will be an atmosphere of doubt, an atmosphere of timidity, in all discussions between scientists. The atomic bomb itself is not the outcome of work and study by a single scientist; it is not the work of a small team of associated scientists; it is the work of a team of scientists, and the foundation of their work has been not national, not between two or three nations, but founded on the work of international science, of the scientists of many generations in many countries of the world. Therefore, our scientists owe to the scientists of other nations a tremendous part of the knowledge they possess, and of what they have managed to develop upon the basis of that knowledge. They have an international inheritance of tremendous value. Because they have an


international inheritance, they have international responsibilities, they have international duties, they have international loyalty which is, at least, as great, and probably greater, than their loyalty to the nation in which they reside.
We have seen in the development of the scientific work of the world, the work of internationalism in its finest phase. We have seen the benefits of this citizenship of the world in the sphere of science. It should be an example to the rest of us in every other department of man's activity. If, now, we are to clamp the narrow confines of an Official Secrets Act upon the work of many scientists in this country—for many branches of science are involved in this new development and its range; if the scope is to be narrowed, and if there are to be muzzles upon the scientists of this country—muzzles which the best scientists can never willingly accept—it will obstruct their efficiency, and the attainment of the greatest possible benefit in this country of the use of atomic energy. We need to apply the best scientific knowledge this country possesses to this new discovery, which is as revolutionary for health and welfare as it is revolutionary for the destruction of life and property. If we allow these secrecy Clauses to remain in the Bill, there is grave danger that peaceful possibilities will be stunted and smothered. While the activity which is being operated may now be safe from the point of view of the Official Secrets Act—as this thing is in its infancy—it may be that later on that safe activity will be discovered by some new process to be essentially an official secret. There will be at all times the possibility of over-caution, the possibility of throwing the blanket too widely over the scope of study and experiment which will bring these people under a grave disadvantage, in face of a discovery which might help us to produce, by its cheap and widespread power, a condition of health and prosperity such as this country has never known.
I appeal to the Front Bench to withdraw these secrecy Clauses, or at least substantially to amend them, so that they are not nearly as wide in their scope as at present. This withdrawal would be a bold decision, a dramatic decision, which might be noticed all the more by the

world because it would be a withdrawal of the Clauses made after their introduction as part of the Bill. By withdrawal we would be declaring to the world at large Britain's determination that international control of atomic energy must succeed, that international authority shall be established and that we are staking all on the fact that control is the only way in which the people of this land can have security from the fear of war—fear of a war more deadly than ever war has been in the past. There is no security in an international arms race in atomic bombs. Security must be world-wide, or there is no security at all. Security has to be obtained by international cooperation, or it cannot be obtained at all. This small island of cities with mass populations, is a glorious target from the point of view of the aimer of an atomic bomb. The fact that we had developed, under an Official Secrets Act, weapons of retaliation of tremendous power, would be little consolation for the effect of a surprise attack by atomic bombs which might disrupt the whole of our development of means of retaliation. Even if it were not so, it would be of no consolation to the hundreds of thousands of dead. Our salvation lies not in building up a national control of this new power, but in putting everything we have, all our time and energies and enthusiasm, into the idea of international control and the outlawing of atomic warfare. I ask for the withdrawal of these Clauses as an indication of that intention, as an indication of that determination, and as having a psychological effect which will help the Foreign Secretary in international conferences and in his work of trying to disperse suspicion, now hampering and obstructing work that is essential to our welfare and very existence.

5.35 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I am sure the House will envy me my pleasant task of congratulating the hon. Member for South Ilford (Mr. Ranger) on a very interesting and original speech. It is rare nowadays for any hon. Member on any side of the House to be able to say that he has shown such self-restraint that he has not addressed the House for a period of 12 months. I think hon. Members will feel that they have missed a great deal in that he has not seen fit to take part in our Debates earlier. At the same time, as


a very old Member, I congratulate him on carrying out what used to be a tradition of this House that new Members should be seen more than heard. But the speed of legislation now is such that we all have to take part. I believe the hon. Member has shown by his speech today that he has been thinking of this matter, and I only wish I could go the whole way with him. I certainly agree entirely with what he said at the end of his speech.
As I interpreted the speech of the Prime Minister earlier today, there is nothing in this Bill—quite the contrary—which conflicts with the idea of international control. It is perfectly obvious that international control of a force of this kind is the only control which can be effective. Another matter which I think ought to be mentioned is that the internal combustion engine, invented half a century or more ago, was looked upon as rather interesting but the fact that it revolutionised war and the conduct of war was not appreciated at the time when it was invented. As scientists go forward, so will their inventions become more complicated, more formidable and more devastating, if wrongly applied. I agree with the hon. Member for South Ilford that we cannot restrict scientific thought and intercourse. It must be world wide. It is only by the contact of scientists with each other that scientific advance is possible throughout the world.
The hon. Member for South Ilford put forward views which I have very often heard expressed by eminent scientists, to the effect that they will not be bound by this, that or the other; that they feel their first duty to be to the world of science, not to the laws of their country. I cannot agree with that, because a man, be he scientist or not, must make a contribution and recognise his duty and obligations as a citizen of his country. When the time comes, through the United Nations Security Council, or in some other way, if there is to be a greater interchange of view and widening of scope and, to use the hon. Member's expression, an extension of the blanket a little further, let there be more discussion, on a wider range. Let us hope, before very long the emphasis will be not on destruction, but on evolution of power. But we cannot divide one from the other.
There are one or two matters about which I hope the Minister of Supply will

be able to give us some further information. I should have thought it very important to know whether the general form of this Bill is, more or less, the form of similar Bills that either have been, or will be, introduced into the Parliaments of the British Commonwealth. It seems to me one of those matters where it is all important that there should be some general common form, because in that case it would be possible for consultations to take place between the scientists of different parts of the British Empire, and to do so properly and in due form, and thereby get the benefit of their researches.
All through this Debate we have been talking about the scientists. I want to emphasise that in the development of anything like atomic energy, the engineer has to play a large part, and I hope that the apprentices in the engineering industry will be encouraged to play their part in this terrific development. It is rather appalling to realise that atomic energy is something which will completely change everything we have been able to calculate upon both in the forces of destruction and in the power of reconstruction and development. It is of such immense importance that we should do everything we can, whilst retaining certain restrictions for the time being, to conduct its development in such a way that we shall not only be equal to the lead of other countries, but that, in accordance with our previous practice, we shall go ahead of other countries, by what we believe to be the genius of our race and our tradition.
There is also the matter mentioned by my right hon. Friend earlier about the Government not considering this a matter of priority. I think I can refute that because Harwell happens to be in my constituency, and so great has been the Government priority that I have had to try to get two bricklayers taken away from Harwell to build houses for my constituents. I have not been very successful, and I do not regret it because I think that a drive must be made to get the research station ready, and that we cannot afford to waste a single day or week. The more people realise the relative importance of that work compared even with other important things, the easier it will be for them to understand the position. Certain things are causing everyone difficulty—the provision of the necessary equipment and machinery. It


is almost impossible to get equipment ready in the way in which it is wanted, unless the manufacturing industries in this country which are concerned in this task, are able to impart to the workers the real urgency of this matter. I do not pretend to know any more than any other hon. Member of this House, but we have to provide complicated equipment, and there are bottlenecks, as there always are in establishing machinery of this kind. I am convinced that we shall have to make a special drive and see that in every workshop in this country and in every factory which is in any way connected with this great task, everyone down to the last joined apprentice is made to realise the part he is playing in getting these research stations established.
In addition to that—I think I mentioned this in a previous Debate—great inventors are usually young. When one gets to my age, one does not invent anything It is when one is young that one invents things; one's brain is young and keen. I think it is true to say that no one over 25 has really invented anything yet; he may have followed someone else's idea, but the great inventions of history have been the work of very young men.

Mr. Pickthorn: Forty.

Sir R. Glyn: I think it is younger than that. My impression is that one cannot start too young. When a new idea of this sort comes along we should do something in the schools and universities to offer a career to young scientists and engineers, and we are not, as far as I know, doing that. It is difficult to know why. It is partly due to this business of secrecy and of being afraid to say too much. I am sure that there is something about this development which will attract young men and women. There is a great shortage just now of people going into the walks of life concerned with this matter. We know that there is a great shortage of draughtsmen and draughtswomen, a great shortage of people going into apprentice jobs, a shortage in the glass industry and elsewhere. It is from the types of people, who handle things in their daily task, that the ideas come. We shall, I hope, be able to provide from industry, for this set-up, those people who can make a great contribution.
The Prime Minister told us today that the Minister of Supply is to carry out the administrative work and the details, but that the subject will remain in his hands as Prime Minister and will be watched very closely by the Cabinet as a whole. That is essential but although the present Minister of Supply is most competent I dread the amount of weight that is being put on his shoulders. He seems to me to be engaged in the disposal of certain stores, varying from large things to tiny things; he has already got the whole of the research work of the three Services on his back, and now he has this vast job as well. While I do not at the moment see any signs of cracking as a result of the straws that are being put on his back, I trust that the Prime Minister will consider having a special Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry who will devote the whole of his time to assisting in this matter. That goes also for the Lord President of the Council. By tradition, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has always been under the charge of the Lord President, and it is the Lord President's office to supervise scientific and educational matters of that kind. All the research establishments, in the old days, were under the care of the Lord President. There is now established, under the most able direction of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), a special committee. I am not quite sure how that committee fits in with the work of the Minister of Supply and the Lord President of the Council. It is quite clear that there are ties in both directions, but we are now reaching a stage of scientific research and development when it seems to me that there is scope for some focal point as between the Lord President's work and that of the Minister of Supply in connection with both research for the Services and with the terrific responsibility which rests on the right hon. Gentleman to see that atomic energy is handled in the correct way.
Finally, I believe that those professors and scientists who have been concerned with the original development of atomic energy at Cambridge and elsewhere, and more recently in the United States, and who are now engaged in the United States, in cooperation with American and Canadian scientists, have made a most tremendous contribution. The British name stands very high. After all, the work done


at Cambridge was the basis of all this, and it is only man's folly which is making this development a possible means of the destruction of the human race. No material consideration will cure that; there is nothing that can be done by putting secrecy Clauses in a Bill, and and I do not care whether they are in or not. The only way to save civilisation is by something totally different—by a realisation of certain moral forces and certain rights and wrongs which are, I think, in the character and in the spirit of nations. I am very sad, because if one travels about in Europe now one inevitably hears of and sees the divisions that are taking place; one knows that the mentality of the Germans is dedicated to destruction, and that after every war in every country, every scientist is being asked by his Government to devote all his energies to means of the destruction of human life so long as it is not their own. After every war we have this terrific concentration of scientific thought devoted to destruction. When we come to change from war to peace, we have this hangover from war. The tragedy is that somehow or other we are not able to rise above the appalling condition of seeing human beings playing with fire and being unable to stop them blowing themselves to pieces. Literally, that is true. It is like watching a lot of children playing in a dangerous explosive store. Until some force, which I believe can only come from above, converts people to something else, we shall never get that position put right.
We know today that the Germans came very near to producing something which happily the course of the war prevented them from putting into force. If I were more satisfied that there was not collusion at the present time between German scientists bent on destruction and other scientists of other countries, I should feel much happier. I do not know whether the Prime Minister could say the same thing. I do not think it would be wise for any person in an official position to say that, though there is no harm in my saying it. The great danger is caused when we build up two blocks of scientists and engineers in conflict with each other. I am convinced this is not the time when we can take any risks or chances. After all, these things need not be dropped from the skies. It is a great mistake for people, if they are talking of destruction, to think only in the form of bombs. If develop-

ments take place, a small packet in the bow of every steamer going up every waterway in this island and into all the harbours, a few suitcases left in luggage waiting rooms—all could go up together without any warning with devastating results. With these nightmares passing through one's brain, I feel that the Government and the House can take no risks. Indeed, it is a terrific responsibility. I hope the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to this Bill and that we shall all work to switch atomic energy into peaceful moulds so that we can say all that we have, all that we fought for, amounts to something better than utter destruction.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I am sure there is much in the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) which commanded support from these benches, particularly his concluding paragraph. I would like, if I might with humility, to express my appreciation of the fact that the Prime Minister has introduced this Bill himself today in order to mark his appreciation of the importance of this subject. In my speech I desire to deal specifically with the Clauses of the Bill, but in view of the general discussion which has proceeded, perhaps I may be allowed five or six sentences on the matters to which reference has been made. We all welcome very much the statement of the Prime Minister of what I am convinced to be a fact, that there is not perhaps as much awareness of the danger arising from atomic energy in this country as there is in the United States of America.
Two or three months ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), whose absence is very much regretted, said in a most important conference of atomic scientists at Oxford, that the atomic bomb is not the only weapon of mass destruction now available and that there are other weapons of mass destruction being developed which will be available in the near future. I was a little sceptical about that when I first heard it, but it is a statement made by the chairman of the committee which advises the Government upon this and similar matters. Such investigations as I have been able to make with leading scientists in America have changed my mind and convinced


me, so far as one is able to be convinced from such information as is available, that there is a great basis of truth in the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I beg the Prime Minister to consider whether he will not be able at some stage to make a statement as to the weapons of mass destruction which may become available, or which are now becoming available, in order that the people of Britain and the world should be told the truth. I do not suggest that it is desirable to frighten them. That is far from my thoughts. I suggest, in view of the admitted danger hanging over the heads of men, that they should at least know what the danger is, because if may greatly change their whole attitude to foreign affairs. It may change their whole attitude to medium Powers because, as Field Marshal Smuts pointed out, the most important factor of all is the time factor. I do not believe myself that the Soviet Union can produce atomic bombs for five years; but can they produce radio active dust next year, which may be almost as terrible a weapon? Can they produce biological and bacteriological warfare? I mention the Soviet Union only as an illustration. I suggest we should also consider the Argentine and other countries.
I come now to the two real points which have been raised in a letter to "The Times" today sent by the Atomic Scientists Association. That letter seemed to me to convey the beliefs of almost all scientists in this sphere. It is backed up by the Association of Scientific Workers. I know, because I was invited to the National Council of the Federation of American Scientists, that it represents also the view of American scientists. I will deal with my second point first, because the Prime Minister raised it in his speech. I do not think there was anything the Prime Minister said which would not have commanded complete assent from such scientists I have been able to talk with, with the one exception of the interpretation of Clause 11, upon which I imagine that he and the Minister are open to argument. As Clause 11 and Clause 18 (1) are construed by scientists; they prevent the disclosure of any information in the nature of fundamental research in the whole field of nuclear research. Once this was upon the Statute

Book it would in effect mean that Professor Oliphant would be unable to talk to Professor Peierls, the theoretical physicist, advising him upon any of the matters on which the Government have allocated him £141,000. He would first have to submit to the Minister a request for permission to do so. The exact words are:
Any person who … knowingly communicates any document, drawing, photograph, plan, model or other information whatsoever which describes, represents or illustrates any existing or proposed plants used or proposed to be used for the purpose of producing or using atomic energy …
Atomic energy is defined—this is a really important point—in Clause 18 (1) to include the energy released in any process which involves the transformation of or the actions between atomic nuclei. I think the point has been admitted already by officials that that would cover a cyclotron, a betatron, a Cockcroft-Walton apparatus and other instruments for fundamental research. The Prime Minister made it quite clear in his speech that the intention of the Government is to see that information with respect to bombs or to the industrial "know-how" for the provision of material from which bombs are made, must be kept secret. With that, everybody is agreed.
The Prime Minister also said he was in favour of fostering basic fundamental research. He pointed out that fundamental research can exist only in an atmosphere of freedom and full cooperation between scientists in the country and outside. The point will be met if the Minister is prepared to indicate that he will accept an Amendment which will so define atomic energy that it does not include the infinitesimal amount of energy released in the course of fundamental research in the use of cyclotrons, betatrons and similar instruments. This is an absolutely vital matter, for this reason. We are at least five years behind the United States in atomic energy, and we are bound to remain five years behind. The first pile working in the United States was towards the end of 1942. There has been no secrecy, nor has there been any announcement about any pile working in the British Isles, and I think it is obvious that no pile is working at present, though one may assume that one will be very soon. That means that we start off, as I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite implied by his reference to the amount of


money to be spent, at a great disadvantage. We arc, in fact, five years behind the Americans, simply because we have not got the plant, the materials, the engineering work done, and it is really not a question of secrets so much as one of sheer hard facts.
I am not in any way blaming the Government, because it is almost entirely beyond their control, but this is the point. If we are to maintain our position in the world, the only method by which we can regain the lead we once possessed is by encouraging fundamental research and by allowing scientists—the really important ones we have at the moment are Prof. Oliphant and Prof. Chadwick—to discover the nature of atomic energy, which scientists do not yet know. Scientists are not at all sure what goes on inside the nuclei, and until the new apparatus is available which enables the nuclei of many atoms to be bombarded most effectively it will not be possible for scientists to discover it. I hope hon. Members opposite will forgive me for dealing with this point, but I think the views of scientists should be put before the House and that hon. Members should be told of the main hope of British recovery in this field. If that is the fact, and I do not think the Minister will challenge it— that our main hope lies in allowing our scientists to proceed with fundamental research—it is essential that Clause 11 of the Bill should not be allowed to go forward in its present terms. I hope the Minister will indicate when he winds up the Debate that he is prepared to amend the Clause so as not to cramp fundamental research, but to allow work to proceed on cyclotrons, betatrons, etc.
May I now turn to my second point, which was partly made by the hon. Member who has just spoken—that scientists desire a general advisory committee? In the United States, there are a five-man Commission, an Advisory Committee, a Military Liaison Committee and a Special Investigation Committee of Congress. Against these four checks, we here have but one. We have found the Minister most accommodating but the point has already been made sufficiently that he is in charge of many other matters, and I am sure that he would derive benefit from an advisory committee. The committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities is not a com-

mittee of scientists concerned with this project. There is only one scientist on that committee with experience of the American project—Sir James Chadwick—and he spends a lot of time in America engaged in very important international matters. I suggest that the Minister would do a great deal to reassure scientists if he were prepared to accept an Amendment in favour of a committee of scientists, technicians and engineers as a general advisory committee to advise him. That is entirely in accordance with the principle for which the Labour Party stands. The Labour Party does not stand for absolute, one-man, unadvised control in any subject whatsoever. Why does it stand for it in atomic energy, when it is not prepared to accept it in its coal nationalisation proposals and accords the fullest measures for consulting the workers, the managers and others concerned?
Scientists are only endeavouring to secure that the Minister will have scientific advice. I am sure that the Minister is unable to spend his time seeing these scientists, nor, probably, would it be very helpful if he did. I did not mean to make that remark in any offensive spirit. We cannot expect a civilian Minister to be a scientific expert, and I think scientists are entitled to know if there will be a proper channel through which they can state their views and ensure that those views are understood in the proper quarters. How can any scientist have any confidence in a set-up which produces a Minister who does not know anything about atomic energy and which does not indicate who are the scientists who are to advise him? The scientists ask that they should, at least, know who the advisers are.
May I come to another point which the Minister may have had in mind? The Minister may say that, while the principle of an advisory committee is a good one, it would derogate from the Parliamentary control of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister nods his head, and I take it that he is in agreement. Surely, these things are entirely compatible. On the one hand, he will have his advisory council, to which engineers and scientists can go, but, entirely unaffected by that is the control by Parliament of the Minister. I cannot see how it can be argued, to put it in an extreme form, that an unadvised dictator


is better than an advised dictator. I beg the Minister's pardon for using the word dictator, and I do not suggest that he has any of the attributes of a dictator, but, surely, this is the fundamental point? How can one properly acquire information upon which one can criticise the Minister? A moment or two ago, I tried to give some technical details, when hon. Members opposite started to titter. This is not an institution before which a Member of Parliament can easily start to argue a scientific matter, but I am sorry that there are among hon. Members opposite some who are not even prepared to be curious about the basis upon which the whole industrial future of Britain may depend.
In any event, the scientists would be precluded, under Clause 11, from giving information to a Member upon which he could come to this House and ask the Minister to give an account of his actions. Parliamentary control, in this matter of atomic energy, is almost entirely unreal. I think the Minister knows that, if I put to him facts which I could not have acquired without having been told them by a scientist, he will want to know who the scientist is and may well take action against him. I hope he will reconsider the matter. The scientists do not ask that they should appoint the advisers of the Minister. They have agreed that the Minister should appoint his advisers, and that the Minister would still be free to disregard the advice of his advisory committee if he so desired, but they do ask the Minister to let them know who is to speak for them in advising him. I think that is a simple and reasonable proposal which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept.
My final comment is this. The Bill is undoubtedly a very necessary Bill in so far as it indicates our intentions to put atomic energy under national control, but, in actual fact, I would defend the Government against the right hon. Gentleman opposite who accused them of having been dilatory in bringing this matter forward. In actual fact, the Government are now controlling atomic energy in Britain. They control all the uranium and the thorium and have the Official Secrets Act which, as the Prime Minister admits, operates in relation to the whole of the industrial "know-how." In view of that fact, I would beg the Government

not to rush this Bill through—assuming they do not agree with the views of almost every scientist consulted on this matter— unless they are able to give way on these points. This is not a Bill to be rushed through at a particular moment. As I have said, the Government already control atomic energy and I am sure the Prime Minister and the Minister will remember the words that
magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom.

6.11 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: We have all been impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). I confess that I have spent a very melancholy day in this House. Although this Bill has been presented by the Prime Minister in his usual able fashion by confining himself to the strict purpose of the Bill, this could not conceal its true historical significance, and that is that it affects the future of this country and that of mankind. Although we could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be drawn into a long argument about foreign affairs, international repercussions and so forth, I should have liked the Prime Minister to emphasise more than he did that it is for this country to do everything in its power to outlaw the very instrument which it is the purpose of this Bill to develop. I, like the hon. Member for King's Norton, would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to disclose to this country what they know with regard to other fiendish discoveries, both potential and actual, in the realm of atomic energy. We are a very tolerant race and very easy-going. We are not easily moved by emotion or mass sentimental scenes or emotions which are not considered "British good form." But it is the duty of the Government to explain to the people, not only the potentialities of the particular instrument dealt with in this Bill, but of other cognate destructive weapons, in order that the conscience of the people may be aroused. When their conscience is aroused the people of this country can lead the world in moral progress as they have led it in other directions in the past. Not only that, but it is our supreme self-interest to do so, for we are now the most vulnerable country in the whole globe.
The other day, I read that Professor Oliphant had said at a public gathering


that if 50 atomic bombs were strategically dropped on this island, they would so destroy it that those who were unfortunate enough to survive would be completely incapable of repairing the destruction. Surely, we can accept Professor Oliphant as a great authority on this matter. That was a very serious statement to make. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Abing-don (Sir R. Glyn) said, it is very much easier to destroy us by an atomic bomb than to drop a lot of ordinary high explosives because there are many insidious ways of doing so. I should have liked to hear the Prime Minister say more in regard to the British Commonwealth concerning this matter and whether this Bill is on similar lines to those being introduced at the present time in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth. Not only must we act in concert as far as we can, but it is important from a strategic point of view, as well as from other points of view, that there should be action in common in this matter. We know that in the Commonwealth there are great sources of atomic energy, and it is vital that we should act together.
Something has been said with regard to research. For many years before I came to this House I belonged to a profession which, if it has not led the world, has at any rate taken a very prominent part in research and brought many benefits to mankind throughout the world, irrespective of language or strategic frontiers. There is the danger in this Bill that private research will be discouraged. I hope that the Prime Minister will give every encouragement for developments in this new discovery—particularly in its pacific aspects—to be brought before him, in order that no private individual may be left behind, or feel that he is not making his contribution so far as the specific and progressive development of this discovery is concerned.
I would like to endorse the words used in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Ilford (Mr. Ranger) on the question of secrecy. This is a very difficult matter and I know that the Government have the lesson of Canada in front of them. The Canadians are a patriotic people, but some of them were poisoned by a doctrine of a foreign character which completely divorced their minds from all idea of patriotism and allowed them to sell their country to a foreign Power. I

know that the Government have to protect this country against that sort of thing, but, at the same time, I hope that they will not go too far in the direction of eliminating and discouraging world wide publicity of scientific inventions. It is a line which the Government will find great difficulty in achieving, but I am sure they will do their best. This is a non-controversial Bill and is nationalisation of a kind which we can all endorse. All the same, it is a melancholy occasion and I trust that, when the Bill passes through this House, the Government will take measures to make it clear to the whole world that we in this island are absolutely determined to spare no effort in order to secure for all time that this atomic power, so potential of good, shall be eliminated from any use in war. This can and must be done.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) apparently accepted the fact that this Bill was not motivated by any doctrinal idea, but then he went on to complain that there was a certain similarity between this Bill and the other Bills that have been brought in for the nationalisation of certain industries. I think it is worth pointing out that it is not a coincidence that there is this similarity. It was Karl Marx who pointed out that the political structure of a society will depend upon the tools and the power with which that society has to work. It is because the tools and the power with which we have been building up our industrial system have reached such a level of productivity that it has been essential that we should take them over and run them on a national basis. When we deal with this power of atomic energy, it seems to me that if we accept Karl Marx's thesis we have to go one step further and say that we have come to the day when it is absolutely necessary that we should use the tools at our disposal on an international basis, if we are going to use them at all.
I am sure it is a matter of great regret to Members on this side of the House that we are considering a Bill dealing with the use of power from atomic energy for national control and not international control. Some little time ago I was in the United States of America, and I was impressed by the way in which the people


there had accepted a proposal which, it seemed to me, had indicated the readiness of the United States of America to make what is possibly the greatest offer of abnegation of national sovereignty which has ever been made by a responsible Government not unduly oppressed by the strain of war. I was unable to persuade myself that the people of the United States had suddenly been seized with the idealism of internationalism. I came to the conclusion that the reason why the people of the United States were prepared to accept this large measure of international control, which was inherent in the Baruch proposal, was because they were moved by great apprehension, if not fear, of the power which lay in the atomic weapon.
I confess that I am very disappointed to return to this country and to find the comparative lack of interest which exists in the whole business of atomic energy. I think that when we are discussing this matter we are discussing something which, quite literally, may change the shape of this globe. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said in Zurich a short time ago that, maybe, within a measurable distance of time, this energy might mean the disintegration of our globe, and although we know that the right hon. Gentleman does tend on occasion to look on the darker side of things, especially when reviewing the record of our Labour Government, I do think on this occasion there was reason for the prognostication which he made. I know that the scientists of the world are rather modest about the possible next steps to be taken. But when we look back over the comparatively short period of 50 years, when the scientists of the world were convinced that the atom itself was the ultimate particle with which the elements of our world were made, when we realise the strides that have been made in the last seven years, and when we realise, too, and have the opportunity as I had in America to see the tremendous amount of research that is going on in the universities there, one must take account of the possibility that even the neutron and proton which we now believe to be the ultimate particle may not themselves be entities which may be broken up, and it may be that in a short time—in 10 or 20

years, or perhaps 50 years—we shall have within our control the power to disintegrate the globe as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford suggested.
The point I wish to make is this. This tremendous potentiality is being put under the control of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. When I look around, I must say with all humility that there are not many other people, either on the Bench immediately in front of me or on the opposite Front Bench, whom I would rather have in control of atomic energy. But I do feel that it would be reassuring if my right hon. Friend had a body immediately below him who could advise him on the various matters with which he may have to deal, and I think there are some good precedents for this. It has been suggested that we should move step by step with other members of our Commonwealth of nations. In the Bill which is before the House in Australia provision is made for an advisory body of five members. In the Bill, to which reference has already been made, which has gone through the Senate, and I believe has also gone through Congress in the United States, provision is made for an advisory body of nine members. In view of the fact that, as has already been stated, the whole project in the United States is run not by one man but by a board of five, and they themselves are making provision for an advisory body of nine scientists, then I feel that there must be a case on which we should reconsider our own position.
There is another reason why I make this suggestion. In all industries how there is a desire on the part of men who are engaged in them to feel that they can have some share and some say in the general direction and organisation of the industry or service in which they are engaged. That is a feeling which we on this side of the House would wish to encourage and support. It seems to me that once we get among the personnel engaged in any industry a feeling of frustration, that things are not going right, and that they have no power to suggest the direction in which they should go, that industry is bound to be inefficient.
Today we admit that the motive power of money is not sufficient. Most of us admit that there must be an additional incentive, and that incentive can be found, I suggest, in the feeling that a


worker has some real part to play in a particular industry. That applies to the coal mines, it applies to civil aviation, and it applies to the other industries and services which we shall consider and discuss in the near future. However, in my view it applies much more to this particular industry in which so many of the personnel are so, shall I say, intelligent, and so much more socially conscious. They have had the opportunity of developing their minds a stage further than those in certain other industries. I beg of my right hon. Friend seriously to reconsider the suggestion that has been put to him for some kind of advisory board.
Another point to which I would like to draw attention is in Clause 11. We all know of, and much has been said about, the impossibility of allowing personnel to give information freely. It may well be that some kind of restrictions such as the Minister envisages will be necessary. At the present time there is undoubtedly a feeling that the wording or the intention of Clause 11 is unduly restrictive. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he reads, for example, the wording in the Americans' Bill which does at least suggest that if a scientist or a worker in a particular industry is to be liable to a penalty,
… he shall be a person who has intent to injure the United States, or has the intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation
I feel that if some similar wording could be put into our Bill it would at least give some guarantee to the scientists engaged on research that if by any, shall I say, mischance or lack of judgment they did communicate or consult with a colleague, probably in the same laboratory, they would not be liable to proceedings under Clause II.
There is one other point I would like to make with reference to Clause 11. Something has been said already about the necessity of ultimately getting the whole development of atomic energy under some kind of international body. The Prime Minister has said this Government would insist that we eventually get some kind of international development authority. At Nuremberg recently we have seen a big step forward in an attempt to place individual responsibility for the breaking of international law. Mr. Lippmann in the United States has written and said a good

deal about how easily this new system of international law could be applied within the particular field of atomic development. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to consider some such Clause as Clause II being embodied in an international Bill, or in international law. With suitable adaptation it would render it impossible for any scientist to engage upon the development of atomic energy for destructive purposes. In my view— and there have been other people who have given the matter careful thought— it would be feasible to place guilt fairly upon individual shoulders. If there was a, nation reluctant to allow one of its-nationals to go before an international court, there would then be immediately some evidence that that particular nation had motives contrary to its declared intention of not producing atomic weapons of destruction.
I did say in an article which I wrote recently that I disliked the phrase, "This is our last chance." I was quoting that phrase from something which was said by the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) in this House some time ago. I was very sorry, therefore, to see that the editor of the newspaper cut out my reference to the fact that I disliked the phrase, "This is our last chance" and applied it as the title of my article. I do not think it is the last chance of this civilisation, because I have sufficient faith in the ability of the human race to go on to a destiny beyond that which we have now reached. But I do think it likely that the focus of human development may in the future be in India or China, because it is so feasible now, with the atomic weapons we now have, to eliminate social life on our own small island. With that thought in view, I think our Government might well put an additional effort into, not only developing atomic energy in this country for peaceful purposes but into their negotiations in New York with the Atomic Energy Commission, to see if some kind of effective international agreement cannot yet be achieved.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am very gratified at the knowledge that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) should remember my speeches better than I do. I have no recollection of having condemned talk about The Last Chance, but I am very glad to know that


I did. I think it is the most appalling nonsense. But whether or not this or some other technical advance does put the power to destroy the whole of this terrestrial globe into man's hands, I think that the great questions, and also the little questions, which this House has to discuss will be the same as they were before any such technological advance was made.
I regret to say that I desire to lower the tone of this discussion. The discussion has been largely upon a very high intellectual and moral level, and I would rather like to get it down to perhaps smaller considerations. I do not propose to argue, upon the basis of Karl Marx, whether men make tools or tools make men. Nor indeed do I think it desirable to detain the House very long to discuss whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply is, compared with the neighbouring supermen, the one most fitted to control this immense power. I believe I am not less conscious how immense the power is than anybody else. I do not really think that the immensity of the power alters the considerations which this House ought to bring to the subject. Nor do I think, with respect— and I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber now—that it is really very helpful for hon. Gentlemen to tell us what The Scientists think—that The Scientists think this and The Scientists think that. There are probably as many scientists in my constituency as there are in King's Norton; and I think, though I do not know how much more science the hon. Gentleman knows than I do—and he could not know less—I think that probably I know scientists as well as most Members of this House; and I do not think it is really possible to quote The Scientists in that sort of sense. Nor can any majority of scientists or any organisation of scientists in any kind of union or organisation speak for scientists as, for workers in many fields, it can be said that the organisation speaks for the great majority of the people in it. In scientific matters it is the quality of the head that speaks which matters very much more than the quantity of voices which utter in unison, even if we could be sure about that.
I should like to make one other general remark, if I may. I still feel fairly convinced from what discussion I have had

with those who are entitled to have opinions—I do not myself feel directly entitled to an opinion—I still do feel convinced that the control of the raw material is the practical point in this problem, and that, really, everything else is comparatively an adjective matter, and that that is the substantive matter. If you can get international agreement which you really believe yourself to be an agreement—not just an agreement, because all conferences have to end with success—but agreement which is an agreement, ex animo, about raw materials, then you will have got a very long way, and then there may be some control by some supranational authority, otherwise there will be nothing effective except to go on as best we can with the old methods of negotiation and, if necessary, the old but modernised methods of conflict; what will matter most is that in that event we shall not be more frightened by this weapon, with the estimates of whose enormity I agree, than by those to which we are sadly accustomed; because if we were frightened I am sure war would come all the sooner, and we should be all the more likely to be the principal sufferers.
I come now, if I may, to smaller matters, which may seem, some of them, to be almost Committee matters; but I think that this is the proper occasion on which to mention them, because I do think they add up to something appropriate to a Second Reading of the Bill. One thing applies to what I said just now about raw materials. The Minister may search for raw materials, and it is clearly right that he should. But what are the arrangements—I can see it may not be necessary to put them in the Bill —but what are the arrangements about materials overseas? In the Dominions, no doubt, it is a matter for their Governments. In other territories under the Crown, whose is the Ministerial responsibility—presumably, it is that of the Colonial Secretary—for search in His Majesty's non-Dominion territories overseas? And what are to be the relations between that Minister and the Minister who is now in charge of this Bill?
Then there is the matter of secrecy, about which we have had several speeches, with particular reference to Clause II (1), I think it is, I think I have got it right. What I should like the Minister to tell us is this. Has he the power to say how what this Bill purports


to do compares with what has been done or is being done in other countries? I did myself at one time make some study of the American Bill and of the American Debates. I do not propose to detain the House with my remarks about them: I do not think they are very important. But I do think it is important to know the official—the Government's—reaction to all those Debates or at least that Bill. Are they sure that our Bill is the same, or the same with what exceptions, as the American Act, allowing for differences of draughtsman's habits, and so on? Do they think they are doing the same thing in all substantial respects? Or do they think we differ? Similarly, is it possible to make some comparison with what the Russian Government is doing? We were assured by several hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—there may have been some on this side, too—that if fundamental research is to be as strictly tied as proposed by Clause 11, Subsection (I)—we were assured by three or four hon. Gentlemen that we were bound to get, by any such tying, a long way behind foreign countries. Therefore, they must have assumed that the principal foreign Governments are restricting publicity of fundamental research much less tightly than we in this country; and if they know that, then I think that we should have confirmation of it from the Front Government Bench. If, on the other hand, hon. Gentlemen who used that argument were incorrect in their fundamental assumption, then I think that fundamental assumption should be blown out of the water once for all. That cannot be done by an Opposition back bencher. It must be done by His Majesty's Government.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, and that is the question—I apologise here for not having got up the matter as well as I should have, but I make bold to say almost everyone in the House, except one I see on our Front Bench, and, perhaps, one or two opposite, have not mastered this point—that is to say, what is the difference between the effect of the Statutory (Special Procedure) Act upon Clause 7 of this Bill and the normal negative procedure by Prayer which controls the other Ministerial Orders in the Bill? I fully admit that if I had taken enough trouble and sought enough advice outside the Chamber I might have been

quite clear in my mind about that. But I do not apologise for bringing the point to the attention of the House because I do not think it proper that the Bill should have a Second Reading until the House is quite clear in its mind what are the differences between the two sorts of control of Ministerial Orders we are going to have under this Bill—one sort by Prayer, which we all know fairly well and understand, and the other sort under the Act of 1945, which, I think, probably, most of us have rather forgotten. I daresay it is quite proper to have that distinction, and that that distinction has been made exactly as it should have been made; but I do not think we should give the Bill a Second Reading until the House has been informed on that point.

6.48 p.m.

Wing-Commander Shackleton: I should like to return to the main subject of the Bill, but before doing so I should like to question the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) as to the suitability of consulting scientists. He may have many scientists in his constituency, but it is obvious that the men who were responsible for creating the atomic bomb should have a large hand in devising the administration and the organisation of the whole project, in view of the fact that they are scientists. I do consider that they are entitled to have their opinions considered.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to interrupt. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me? I am sure he did not mean to misrepresent me. Nobody has a greater respect or affection for scientists in general, and, particularly, for some of those most concerned in this matter. I did not suggest they should not be consulted. I did say I think it is dangerous in Debates in this House for some of us to say, "The scientists want this or the scientists want that." They are not usefully to be treated as a bloc like that in our Debates.

Wing-Commander Shackleton: Quite frankly, I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Cambridge University meant by that remark—by his original remark—but I will accept his explanation. But I do think that we have not given enough consideration to the opinions of people who have been studying the whole


problem of the production of atomic energy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) at the beginning said—or he inferred— that the Government had not been getting on with the job of producing atomic energy in this country. The point about this Bill is this: In a very short time the right hon. Gentleman will not be in any position to find out, because it will not be possible for him to go to his scientific friends and find out in detail what is going on.
Now we are proposing to set up a new nationalised industry, but, unlike the other nationalised industries, it will not, as has been explained by other Members, particularly the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), be subject to the consideration and full investigation of Parliament. The Prime Minister did suggest that under Clause 11 we had achieved a satisfactory compromise. Very reluctantly, I must say that it is no compromise at all. Clause 11 is completely restrictive as it stands. I confess that I, like everybody else who has tried to think out this problem, can see no solution to the problem of retaining security and, at the same time, achieving satisfactory dissemination of scientific information, nor to the parallel problem of permitting Parliament to keep a check on the work of the new atomic energy projects in this country. I feel that this Clause is not a means, and it does not permit the scientists to work satisfactorily. That opinion is undoubtedly held by a large number of scientists who are actively concerned.
I suggest that there is a great need for considerably more thought on Clause 11. We are now setting up something which has the most tremendous implications, not only in regard to the welfare of this country and the future development of power, and therefore the improvement of the standard of living, but also from the point of view of our own democracy. I do not know how we shall keep a check on the Minister. We have all been paying the Minister compliments today, but we know perfectly well that it will not be possible for him personally to study, and keep a proper understanding of, this industry which will be his responsibility. He must depend on his advisers and we, either here in Parliament or the scientists working in the projects, shall not be in

a position to ensure that those advisers are really giving him the best advice. In the case of other industries we can raise the matter in Parliament, but we shall not be able to do that in regard to this one. How he is going to solve this problem I am afraid I do not know, but I think it is right that we should throw it back to him. It is not enough to say "I, as the Minister, shall be responsible." I consider that it is necessary to have some proper statutory provision to take care of these problems. Whether the provision should be a scientific committee, or whether it should be a special reformed Scientific Committee, the committee over which the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) presides, with more atomic scientists on it, or whether there should be a committee on which Members of both Houses should be represented, as the Americans have, I cannot say. I urge, however, that the matter should be considered and, when we come to the Committee stage, I hope we shall be able to thrash it out and improve this Bill in that direction.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: There are a number of important aspects of this Bill which still remain to be covered, and indeed the subject is so very wide that few of us will quarrel with the necessity for governmental control over research and development in this new field of energy production. However, I anticipate that there may well come a period later on, particularly when we come to deal with the industrial applications of atomic energy, when there will be a very real temptation to extend that governmental control over the industrial use of atomic energy right down into the individual factory or plant. We are a long way yet from that stage, of course, but I do not think we want to consider solely the warlike uses of atomic energy, and in that connection particularly I am sorry to see so much stress laid solely upon the scientists, because I think we have now reached the stage when we should bring the design engineer rather more into the picture. I hope that the Minister, when he sets up his establishments, will not leave out the importance of training right from the beginning the necessary nucleus of design engineers, who are so important when translating a scientific project into the world of practical mechanics.
The most favourable feature, surely, of this Bill, and indeed of the whole subject of atomic energy, is in the clearly awakened social conscience which has been shown by all connected with research into this subject. I wish that those, for example, who originally explored the realms of flying or the internal combustion engine, could have displayed a similar social conscience regarding the consequences of their inventions. I think it is a very hopeful sign that all concerned, all who have touched this tremendously potent activity, are already acutely aware of its immense social consequences and implications. I fully appreciate the need for secrecy in the whole subject, but that does not prevent me from deploring it, because I feel that we may tend, particularly as the danger of war recedes, to become more sluggish in our research into the subject. We need some measure of public interest, and possibly public control of the detailed work of these establishments, and I should like to support the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) in his plea for some form of advisory or scrutinising board, even though that board may happen to operate in conditions of secrecy during the period of its sittings.
It has been stressed that the Bill is only a national Bill, and that it would have been better if it could have been an international Bill, or if it could have been related to a truly international scheme. With that, of course, I fully agree, but I should like to hear—perhaps we may, later in the evening—to what extent our Dominions have been consulted in the preparation of this Bill, because obviously we could go a long way towards making it an international Bill if we knew that Canada was in full agreement with its principles, and India, too, particularly as we understand that important supplies of atomic minerals—if I may use the words in that sense—lie in that sub-continent.
Finally, I would like to refer to the problem of fundamental research into the nature of matter. The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred particularly to the possibility of disintegrating protons and neutrons, and getting even further than we have gone in disintegrating the atom. Whether that is scientifically possible or not I would not like to discuss at the moment, but at least we must envisage the possibility, and I fear that there is a

real danger that this Bill, giving so much power to impose secrecy, may in fact become a sort of iron curtain between our scientists and the true fundamental nature of matter itself. This is obviously something which must be examined by scientists and cannot be determined by a layman, but I hope some consideration can be given to this aspect of the matter, and that the necessary modifications may be made if possible.
It was particularly interesting to hear the Prime Minister, in his opening speech, say that as a result of the Bill having been public for some time a number of useful discussions had taken place with scientists and certain Amendments tabled. That only goes to show the value of discussing a Bill before it is rushed into the Second Reading, and I hope it is a precedent which will be followed in the future. Undoubtedly, through its having been available for some time, we are able to achieve a measure of agreement in this House today.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: I was glad that the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Enroll) referred to the work of engineering in connection with atomic energy. I feel that the work done by the engineers in this connection has been to some extent overlooked.

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

7.0 p.m.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to the Standing Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.

Standing Order 211, page 209, line 23, at the end insert "and nothing in those Orders shall apply to Orders within the meaning of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act. 1945, being Orders in relation to which that Act applies, or to Bills to confirm such Orders."

Standing Order 225, page 219, line 4, leave out "In the following Orders," and insert "In the Orders contained in this Chapter."

Standing Order 229, page 220, line 12, after "Act," insert "whether as originally enacted or as applied by Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945."

Standing Order 230, page 220, line 20, after "Act," insert "whether as originally enacted or as applied by Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945."

After Standing Order 236, insert new Standing Orders 236A to 236L.

Orders of the Day — CHAPTER VIIA

Orders in relation to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, applies

Interpretation of Chapter VIIA. 236A. In the Orders contained in this Chapter the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them: —

"Special Procedure Act" means the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945;

"Special Procedure Order" means an order, scheme, certificate or bye-laws in relation to which the Special Procedure Act applies;

"Special Procedure Petition" means a Petition under Section 3 of the Special Procedure Act against a Special Procedure Order;

"the Chairman" means, subject to the next following Order, the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons;

"the Chairmen" means, subject as afore said and except in the expression "chairmen's panel," the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons;

"the Minister," in relation to any Special Procedure Order, means the Minister of the Crown responsible for laying the Order before Parliament;

"applicant," in relation to any Special Procedure Order, means any person stated on the face of the Order to be a person on whose application the Order is made or confirmed;

"copy," in relation to any document, means a printed or typewritten copy;

Deputy Chairmen. 236B.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 80 (Deputy Speaker and chairmen) relative to Public Business, the Chairman may from time to time appoint any Member of the chairmen's panel as his deputy who shall be entitled to perform his functions under the Special Procedure Act, or under the Orders contained in this Chapter.

(2) Any reference in the said Orders to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords shall be construed as including a reference to any Deputy Chairman of Committees appointed by the House of Lords.

Laying of Orders. 236c.—(1) On the day on which a Special Procedure Order is laid before this House under section 2 of the Special Procedure Act, the Minister shall cause a copy of the Order, and of the certificate or statement required by that section to be laid together

with the Order, to be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and shall also cause copies of the Order and certificate or statement—

(a) to be deposited at the Vote Office for the use of Members; and
(b) to be made available to any person on application to the Minister and on payment:

Provided that the requirements of paragraph (b) of this Order need not be complied with as respects copies of the Special Procedure Order if it is a Statutory Instrument of which copies are required by section 2 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, to be printed and sold.

(2) If on the face of any Order so laid there is stated the name and address of the person on whose application the Order is made or confirmed, that statement shall be included in all copies of the Order deposited or made available in accordance with the foregoing paragraph.

Presentation of Petitions. 236D.—(I) Every Special Procedure Petition presented to this House shall be prepared and signed in strict conformity with the rules and orders of this House applicable to Petitions against Private Bills, and shall be presented by being deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office.

(2) There shall be indorsed on every Special Procedure Petition so presented—

(a) the title (as entered in the Votes) of the Special Procedure Order against which it is presented;
(b) a statement that it is presented as a Petition for amendment or a Petition of general objection, as the case may be; and
(c) the name and address of the Member, Party or Agent depositing it.

(3) The Petitioner shall cause—

(a) a copy of the Petition to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and another copy at the office of the Minister not later than the day following that on which the Petition was presented; and
(b) a copy of the Petition to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the applicant (if any) or to each applicant (if more than one) at his address as specified on the face of the Order not later than the day aforesaid; and
(c) copies of the Petition to be made available not later than three days from the day on which the Petition was presented, to any person on application to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Petition, and on payment.

Memorials objecting to Petitions. 236E.—(1) Within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which a Special Procedure Petition is presented to this House, the Minister or any applicant may present to this House a Memorial objecting to the Petition being certified as proper to be received or, if it is presented as a Petition for amendment, objecting that it is a Petition of general objection, and stating specifically in either case the grounds of the objection.

(2) Every such Memorial shall be presented to this House by depositing it in the Committee and Private Bill Office.

(3) On the day on which a Memorial is so presented, the Memorialist shall cause—

(a) a copy thereof to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments; and
(b) another copy thereof to be delivered or despatched by registered post, to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition.

Consideration of Petitions by Chairmen. 236F.—(1) If a Memorial is duly presented to this House objecting to a Special Procedure Petition, the Chairman shall give notice in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the time and place at which the Chairmen will consider the Petition and Memorial.

(2) If no such Memorial is presented, but the Chairmen are not satisfied that a Special Procedure Petition should be certified as proper to be received, or, if it is presented as a Petition for amendment, are not satisfied that it is such a Petition, the Chairman shall give notice in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the time and place at which the Chairmen will further consider the Petition.

(3) The Chairmen shall have power to determine questions of locus standi in connection with their examination of Special Procedure Petitions, and to decide as to the rights of the Petitioners to be heard upon such Petitions.

Reference of Petition to Joint Committee. 236G.—(1) Where under Section 4 of the Special Procedure Act any Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House, to a Joint Committee—

(a) the Committee of this House shall consist of three members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection;
(b) the Petitioner shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence in support of the Petition;
(c) the Minister shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence against the Petition;
(d) the minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee shall be reported to the House:

Provided that the Minister may give notice in accordance with the following paragraph that he desires that the rights conferred on him by sub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph shall be exercised by any applicant specified in the notice, and thereupon the said sub-paragraph shall have effect as if that applicant were substituted for the Minister.

(2) Any such notice shall be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition and to the applicant specified in the notice at his address as specified on the face of the Special Procedure Order, within three days after the report of the Chairmen is laid before this House under Subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Special Procedure Act, and copies thereof shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office and in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments within the said three days.

Counter Petitions. 236H.—(1) Where under Subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Special Pro-

cedure Act the Chairmen have reported that any Special Procedure Petition has been presented to this House and has been certified as a Petition for amendment and as proper to be received, a Petition (hereinafter referred to as a "Counter-Petition") may, within the period of fourteen days, beginning with the date on which the report is laid before this House, be presented to this House complaining that an amendment prayed for by the Special Procedure Petition will affect the interest of the person presenting the Counter-Petition (hereinafter referred to as the "Counter-Petitioner"), and such Counter-Petition shall stand referred to the Joint Committee to whom the Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House.

(2) Any Counter-Petition presented to this House shall be presented by being deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office.

(3) There shall be indorsed on every Counter-Petition so presented—

(a) the title (as entered in the Votes) of the Special Procedure Order to which it relates; and
(b) the name and address of the Member, Party or Agent depositing it; and
(c) the name of the Member, Party or Agent who presented the Special Procedure Petition to which it relates (hereinafter referred to as the "original Petitioner").

(4) Not later than the day following that on which the Counter-Petition was presented, the Counter-Petitioner shall cause—

(a) a copy thereof to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and another copy thereof to be deposited at the office of the Minister; and
(b) another copy thereof to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the original Petitioner at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition; and
(c) if the Minister has given notice under the last foregoing Order that he desires that his rights shall be exercised by an applicant specified in the notice, another copy thereof to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to that applicant at his address as specified on the face of the Special Procedure Order.

(5) If, on consideration of a Counter-Petition, the Joint Committee to whom the relevant Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House, are satisfied that an amendment prayed for by the Special Procedure Petition may affect the interest of the Counter-Petitioner, the Committee may allow the Counter-Petitioner to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence against the Special Procedure Petition

Withdrawal of Petitions and Memorials. 2361. With regard to the withdrawal of Petitions and Memorials presented to this House under the Orders contained in this Chapter, Standing Order 173 shall apply.

Orders of Local Government Boundary Commission. 236J. In relation to any Special Procedure Order made by the Local Government Boundary Commission under the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945, the foregoing Orders contained in this


Chapter shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (3) of Order 236D the reference to the office of the Minister shall include a reference to the office of the Commission;
(b) in paragraph (1) of Order 236E a reference to the Commission shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister;
(c) in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1) of Order 236G a reference to the Commission shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister, and the proviso to that paragraph and paragraph (2) of that Order shall not apply;
(d) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (4) of Order 236H the reference to the office of the Minister shall include a reference to the office of the Commission.

Extension of time. 236K.—(1) If any period within which anything is required to be done under the Orders contained in this Chapter expires when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or when this House is adjourned for more than four days, it shall be extended so as to expire with the first day thereafter on which this House sits.

(2) In the case of a Special Procedure Petition presented to this House, paragraph (1) of this Order shall apply to the period of fourteen days allowed for the presentation thereof under Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Special Procedure Act in like manner as it applies to a period mentioned in that paragraph.

Notice of date of operation or withdrawal of Order. 236L.—(1) Any notice given by the Minister under Subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Special Procedure Act either determining the date on which an Order is to come into operation or withdrawing an Order shall be given by publishing the notice—

(a) in a case where the Order relates to England or Wales or any part thereof, but not to Scotland or any part thereof, in the "London Gazette";
(b) in a case where the Order relates to Scotland, or any part thereof, but not to England or Wales or any part thereof, in the "Edinburgh Gazette";
(c) in any other case, both in the "London Gazette" and in the "Edinburgh Gazette";
and, in the case of an Order relating to a particular area, in at least one newspaper circulating in that area.

(2) A copy of any such notice withdrawing an Order shall be laid before this House within four days after it is published in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order.

Standing Order 237, page 223, line 7, after "Bills," insert "or Orders."

Appendix (C) (Table of Fees), page 231, line 34, at the end, insert—

"FEES to be paid in proceedings relating to a SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER within the meaning of Chapter VIIA



£
s.
d.


On the deposit of a Memorial by an applicant (other than a Government Department)
1
0
0





For every day on which an applicant (other than a Government Department) appears before—
£
s.
d.


(1) the Chairmen 
3
0
0


(2) a Joint Committee
10
0
0


On the deposit of every Petition and of every Counter-Petition
2
0
0


For every day on which the Petitioners appear before the Chairmen or Joint Committee
2
0
0


For every day on which the Counter-Petitioners appear before a Joint Committee
2
0
0."

The Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper asks the House to adopt certain Amendments to the Standing Orders affecting Private Business. These Amendments are rendered necessary by the passing of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. That Act, the House will remember, provided for certain changes which it is hoped will simplify and expedite the passing of the Orders to which the Act relates. This new procedure was devised, and, I think, was substantially agreed to in the time of the Coalition Government. The changes which the Act makes necessitate the passing of the alterations on the Order Paper to the Standing Orders. These alterations have been drawn up in consultation with all concerned and in particular with officials of another place, and I venture to commend them to the House.

7.4 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: We on these benches have examined carefully the Amendments to the Standing Orders of the House which are here suggested, and we agree with those who have suggested these Amendments. They evolve a code and procedure which, as far as the subject matter permits, is clear from complications and obscurity. They simply make the Standing Orders which relate to our old Provisional Order procedure now cover what is necessary in order to work the new procedure under this Act. It will be remembered that we on these benches were most anxious to secure that this Act and the procedure which it brings into force should not be used in such a way as to prevent or hinder at all the right of access to this House of any individual whose interest is affected by the procedure under the Bill. It is from that aspect of seeing that this right is maintained in all its strength that we have examined the Amendments.
There are just one or two points on which we should like the assurance of the


learned Solicitor-General, or from someone who has addressed his mind to the matter. As I see it, for the first time under this procedure the Minister comes into the position of a litigant before the Committees of this House. I have been in this House long enough to become a little rusty on the carrying through as counsel of a Private Bill, but my memory goes back fairly clearly, and up to now the position of the Minister has been that he has either sent an opinion by writing or by representative to the Committee considering the Bill. Under the Amendment now before the House—I refer to the Amendment, Standing Order 236G—
the Minister shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel, or agent, and to tender evidence against the Petition;
We are most anxious that the position of the Minister should be that of a litigant. It was the spirit and purpose of this Act that if the House decided that the matter should stand referred to a Joint Committee, the proceedings before the Joint Committee should be judicial, and the parties before them should present their case forensically to the Committee involved. It does not need much imagination on any part or on the part of hon. Members or right hon. Members to see that any other position of the Minister might well become liable to abuse. The learned Solicitor-General will probably also be able to help us on the position of the Boundary Commission which, under the subsequent Amendment, have also to appear in the same position. He will be able to inform the House whether it is seriously contemplated that the Boundary Commission will appear in person, or whether again they will be in the position of litigants who except in exceptional circumstances would be represented.
There is one further point on the same general lines on which I venture to detain the House, and that is the Amendment to Standing Order 236H. If the House will follow me they will see that it is possible that under Subsection (5),—
If, on consideration of a Counter-Petition, the Joint Committee to whom the relevant Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House are satisfied that an amendment prayed for by the Special Procedure Petition may affect the interest of the Counter-Petitioner, the Committee may allow the Counter-Petitioner to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence against the Special Procedure Petition.

That sounds complicated, but the underlying procedure is quite clear. When the Order is laid there may be a Petition to it, and then someone who is not affected by the Order may be affected by the Petition, and so he in turn is entitled to put in a counter Petition. What does rather frighten me in the absence of any further explanation is that it is a postulate that the counter petitioner's rights are affected. The Amendment says that the Standing Committee may hear the counter petitioner. I quite see that there is a possibility of some very small point being raised which would not require the hearing of the counter petitioner. There is also the procedural possibility that the Joint Committee thinking there is nothing in the Petition and that they are going to throw it out do not want to hear the counter petitioner. In the absence of these two happenings I think it ought to be made clear that the intention is that any counter petitioner who finds his rights affected will be heard on a point which substantially affects his rights and on which he should be able to present his case.
On the whole, as I have said, the Opposition are prepared to accept and indeed congratulate those who have constructed and evolved a code which deals with matters which are not simple in a way which makes them clear to those who are concerned and practise in such matters. If, as I hope, the learned Solicitor-General will be able to give us an assurance on the matters which I have raised and on other points of detail which may be raised from behind me, we shall allow these Amendments to go through.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Molson: When the Bill was before the House some of us raised a number of points, both on the Committee and Report stages, in order to safeguard, as far as we could, the right of the subject to have access to this House in a case where, under an Order, the rights of a subject were affected. I am bound to say that the Government did both move and accept Amendments which went a long way towards removing the objections which some of us had raised to the Bill. I think it can be said, also, that a number of the other points we raised in the Debate have been adequately and fully met by these Amendments to the Standing Orders.
One point which I raised has been met by the provision whereby the Chairman of Ways and Means may appoint a deputy to discharge these functions for him. He is an officer of this House who has very heavy duties thrown upon him, and perhaps there is no duty which will be more difficult to discharge than these new judicial functions that are being put upon him under this new legislation. While he is entirely the right person, with his colleague in another place, to act in that position, and to be responsible for holding the balance between the need to expedite the machinery of this House and safeguard the rights of the individual, it is extremely important that he should have the power to appoint a deputy. I think it may well prove convenient for him to choose a special deputy to discharge this special work, which is likely to become increasingly specialised and technical as more and more legislation is passed in this House.
So far as 236C is concerned, I note that deposit in the Committee and the Private Bill Office will mean publication on the next day in that part of the Vote which is usually occupied by the Committee and Private Bill Office notices. I think that will be a very substantial safeguard and the House will be kept informed of what is happening. As for the proviso which exempts statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act, I take it—and perhaps the Solicitor-General will confirm this—that the purpose of that Section is that under the other Act, an Act with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar, they have to be published by His Majesty's Stationery Office. I take it that the Minister is not made responsible for providing any affected person with a copy of the Order, because it is considered that the person affected should go to His Majesty's Stationery Office. It appeared to me that under 236D (3, a) by which the Parliamentary Agents must deposit a copy of the Petition the following day in the office of the Minister, there might be some difficulty, but I understand the agents' opinion is that as all the Ministers' offices are in Whitehall that will not present any difficulty. Under 236F (2), I note that in cases where no Memorial against a Petition has been filed the Chairmen are entitled to take exception to any Petition even though no Memorial

against it has been laid before them. This is analogous to the procedure of the Unopposed Bills Committee, and that even where the matter is not being disputed before them, the court, so to speak, are entitled to take any objections they wish to take.
Perhaps the Solicitor-General would explain how it comes about that under 236F (3) there is no definition of locus standi. A close analogy to this is Private Bill Procedure and there the whole question of locus standi is dealt with in immense detail in Standing Orders 91–102. Quite obviously it is a very important power which is being left to the Chairmen to decide which of His Majesty's subjects have locus standi to present Petitions. Under this new code there is none of that careful definition which exists in the case of Private Bills. I am not saying that it is wrong, but it is obviously a considerable departure from precedent, and I should be obliged if the Solicitor-General would be good enough to explain why that has been done.
I now come to the point which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), namely, that under 236H (5) the Chairmen may, but are not obliged to, hear counter Petitions. I imagine that my right hon. and learned Friend has given the right explanation of the drafting of that Amendment. It is obviously a matter of considerable importance, and I hope the Solicitor-General will deal with it. I rather think that this is almost the first occasion that one has had, in Amendments to Standing Orders of this kind, a whole paragraph dealing with the case where some statutory body like the Local Government Boundary Commission are put more or less into the position of a Minister. It is certainly a curious and anomalous position, but it is, as I remember, exactly what Parliament intended in passing that legislation. It was our intention that the alteration of local government boundaries should be taken outside the purview of Parliament, and that we should not be subjected to pressure in dealing with comparatively small boundary matters.
But I do not fully understand exactly where the Minister—who, I take it, is the Minister of Health—comes in. Is he, in fact, really only a messenger? It is the Minister of Health who is responsible, not


for making the Order, as I understand it, but for laying the Order before the House. Under Section 6 (2), of the Act, in cases where the Joint Committee amends an Order to such an extent that it is not acceptable, it is then the Minister of Health who becomes responsible for introducing the Bill in order to give effect by full-blooded legislation to that which has not been passed under special procedure by the Joint Committee. I think we ought to be told by the Solicitor-General what exactly is the position of the Minister of Health in this matter.
He begins by having responsibility for laying the Order and then he retires into the background. What is going to be the position of the Minister of Health in the case of these Orders, some of which, I understand, are already ready and likely to come before the House in the near future? That reminds me of a feature of the proviso to 236G, a peculiar one, that in cases where the Minister makes an Order at the request of some statutory undertaker or local authority, he may retire into the background and depute to the authority asking for the Order the responsibility to instruct counsel, tender evidence, and so on, in order to defend the Special Order. These are points of some importance, although none of them are very wide, which, in order that we may be quite clear how they are going to work, I should be grateful if the Learned Solicitor-General would explain to us.
There is one more important matter, and that is this: Under this Act it is possible for the Government to use its majority in order to prevent a matter from being fully discussed in this House. That was admitted by the Lord Privy Seal, and, of course, there can be nothing in Standing Orders to prevent that from taking place. The Lord Privy Seal said:
I give the most specific assurance that we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered. I think that it would be wrong to use the Bill in that way, and so long as this Government continues I can assure hon. Members that this specific pledge which I have given will be honoured to the full."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th Nov., 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2180–1.]
I do not think that that pledge can be repeated too often, because it is a matter of vital importance to the subjects of this country that, under this expedited pro-

cedure in the House of Commons, they shall not be deprived of their rights of access to this House.

7.25 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskiee): The Statutory Instruments (Special Procedure) Bill was a Bill actually introduced, in the first place, by the Coalition Government. It is a Bill which, I think, is recognised on all sides of the House as one necessary for the purpose of supplying a need for the postwar reconstruction period. The Lord President of the Council on Second Reading pointed out that it was felt to be necessary to supply a gap which was left by the old Provisional Order procedure, and what the Lord President referred to as Special Procedure, namely procedure by affirmative or negative resolution. So, from both sides of the House one starts on common ground that this Bill, now an Act, supplies what is a real necessity for the purpose of the legislation necessary in the post-war reconstruction period. It has been the experience of all of us, I think, that in examining the construction of the Act through its passage through Committee, we have all worked towards a common end, and in that sense the Act has been wholly non-controversial. It is desired by both sides of the House. I would say this about it, and this really is a point which applies to all the questions which have been raised by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening from the other side of the House: It must of necessity be an experimental procedure. This is a completely new procedure; it has not been tried in this form at all before. On both sides of the House, I am quite sure that we sincerely hope that it will work well. If it does work well it will be an extremely useful instrument in our modern legislation. Of course it may not work well. On this side of the House, we think, and I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite are generally of the same opinion, that there is a reasonable chance that it will work extremely well and meet the need for which it is designed. But as I say it must be experimental.
With that preface may I address myself to points raised by the two last speakers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) asked about Ministers put in the position of litigants


and how would the Boundary Commission fare before the Joint Committee provided for by the Act. I would prefer in answer to those questions not to tie down the Government to any definite code of procedure with regard to the proceedings be fore the Committee. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) asked for a repetition of the assurance given by the Lord Privy Seal. That assurance I give willingly. The Government certainly do not regard this Bill as a means of bludgeoning down opposition. They will do what they can to see that in the procedure before the Joint Committee there is, so far as it lies with them, a complete opportunity afforded for all interests to be adequately represented and for all points of view to be adequately ventilated. I feel that an answer in these general terms is more satisfactory than a priori to answer in detail the questions put with regard to the role to be played by the Minister. The Government are anxious that this Act shall work, and it cannot work unless it provides means for a real representation of private interests in relation to the matters under which the Orders provided for by the Act are directed. I would say that the Minister when he appears and in whatever capacity he appears—whether he appears directly or delegates his right to appear under the terms of Standing Order 236 (g)—will cooperate in the desire that all interests shall be adequately and fully protected. The same observation must apply to the question asked on the terms of Standing Order 236 (h5).
Both the hon. Gentlemen who spoke were concerned about the position of counter-petitioners, and with the circumstances that there was apparently not an absolute right for them to be heard, and that it remained in the discretion of the Chairman. That, of course, is the position which attains in a great many similar contingencies. One must, of course, rely on the chairman exercising a wise, fair and impartial discretion to decide in a particular case whether or not the counter-petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to state his case. Without again a priori binding the Government or anyone to any particular formula, I should have thought that it might well appear to a Chairman that if a counter-petitioner was affected, he should be given an opportunity to state his interests and to be repre-

sented and call evidence if necessary. That, of course, in each particular case must be entirely a matter for the discretion of the chairman, and beyond that, I feel that I cannot be fairly expected to go. It is not, in any case, for me to say. It is a matter in each case for the Chairman to decide according to his discretion in the particular circumstances of the case which he has before him.
To deal with the questions specifically put by the hon. Member for The High Peak, he defined correctly, as I understand it, the reason for the exception in relation to Orders within the Statutory Instruments Act, 1945. That Act already provides for a process of publication, and I presume it was thought unnecessary that that should be duplicated. That was the answer that the hon. Gentleman conceived to be correct, and I think that obviously is the right answer. The hon. Member was concerned with the question of locus standi. I can merely advise the House. The House knows that these Orders were drafted after careful consultation between gentlemen who are experts upon these particular things. The power that is given with regard to saying who in any particular case shall be deemed to have a locus standi is, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, a comparatively new one. Again, the answer is that the procedure is experimental. It would be better to leave it to the discretion of the Chairman to say whether any person in a particular case should be deemed to be a person who has or who has not a locus standi. Apparently it was thought wise, and I think it is wise, when one is devising a new procedure to leave it in that way rather than to try to think out a precise formula which has been found to work in other cases, but which might in practice need considerable alteration if it were applied to this particular type of procedure.
The question of the relationship of the Minister to the Boundary Commissioners in the event of its being necessary to bring in a Bill for the purpose of bringing into operation an Order is one which does not arise so much upon the terms of these Orders as it does upon the terms of the Act itself. As the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the definition Section, the Minister is defined in the Act, and the Minister is the person who is given power to bring in the Order. That, however, is a


question which does not arise on these Orders; it arises on the Act, and is a matter of construction of the Act. Finally the hon. Gentleman asked me to repeat the assurance given by the Lord Privy Seal. I have already done so, and I gladly do it again. We want the Act to work fairly, as I have already said and as the Lord Privy Seal said, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that assurance.
In conclusion, I would like to thank hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Member for The High Peak, for the cooperation which they have afforded to us in the guidance of the Act through the-House. We sure now discussing the Orders and not the Act, but I would not like to allow this opportunity to go by without saying how much we appreciate the help and the counsel afforded by many hon. Members opposite when the matter was in its earlier stages I am sure that hon. Members opposite also hope that the Act will prove to be a great success, and, of course, these Orders are simply for the purpose of implementing various provisions of the Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY BILL

Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," resumed.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Palmer: As I was about to say when I was interrupted about half an hour ago, I welcome the Atomic Energy Bill because I see in it at least the shape of a better and bolder Bill. Whether a better Bill can be forced out of the shell of the present Bill remains to be seen. Much will depend upon the readiness with which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is prepared to consider Amendments which I imagine will be on the Order Paper on the Committee stage on Friday. I have listened to nearly every word of the Debate on the Bill this afternoon. In no part of the House has the principle or the Tightness of State control been challenged. Therefore, it seems to me that the question that remains is whether in this Bill we are defining State control in the most flexible and sensible fashion. Are we making the most of the do's or

the don'ts. Does the Bill in its present form encourage or frustrate? In my view, the principal weakness of the Bill is that it leans too decidedly towards the don'ts. It is precautionary legislation.
We are told that the object of the Bill is to promote and control the development of atomic energy, and the Minister is given amazingly wide powers towards that end, but, in fact, most space in the Bill is given to detailing the Minister's powers of control and prohibition and very little indeed is said about his duty of development. I do not think there is a great deal of danger under my right hon. Friend, but under some other Minister I think there is a danger that the powers of the Bill might be used to restrict scientific progress by unnecessary and tedious interference—if I may be allowed to borrow a current Blackpool phrase, to strangle progress with bands of red tape. For instance, a strict interpretation of Clause 10 might mean that all experimental apparatus in connection with nuclear physics might require a licence before it could be set up and quite clearly that would mean a great restriction on the freedom of research. But the greatest danger—and in this I am emphasising what has been said already in the Debate —to scientific progress in this Bill is contained in Clause 11. That Clause may in the future become the notorious Clause 11. It is the so-called secrecy Clause. That Clause creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty, and I am sure that in future it will create uncertainty, in the mind of every scientific worker. I do not make any claim to speak on behalf of any particular body of scientific workers or scientific men, but I am convinced that in the future every scientific worker in this country who is engaged in research, or even engaged in teaching, will be extremely cautious if this Bill becomes the law of the land. He will be fearful of prosecution if he discusses with a collaborator a new idea having a bearing upon atomic energy development.
Much has been said already—and I agree with it—about the importance of team work in atomic energy research, and of course, Socialists, in particular, like to lean towards the idea of team work in scientific research. Nevertheless, it is true that, in spite of all the team work, important as it may be, very often the vital thought that counts for so much occurs in the brain of one individual. I


can imagine a situation of this sort arising. Suppose a scientific man is at work in one of our universities. He may be very learned in the question of nuclear physics. He may be a great expert. There may be some problem which, until that time, has awaited a solution. One day a particularly bright idea strikes him, and he thinks that it might be worth trying out, but if he is to try it out he must get advice from someone who has, for instance, a greater knowledge of hydraulics. He puts the idea on paper, and takes steps to communicate it to some other university or engineering works in some other part of the country. I suggest that under Clause 11, if he takes that quite routine action, he is liable to prosecution. I do not think that that is in any sense an exaggerated example. The legal position with regard to Clause 11 is, as I understand it, that it does not replace but simply supplements the Official Secrets Act. It is something additional to that Act and is intended apparently to bring into the net unofficial secrets as it were —dangerous atomic thoughts of various kinds.
It is the opinion of many leading scientific men in this country that the Government have already sufficient powers to ensure the security of the State under the Official Secrets Act. Since these drastic new powers will stop the naturally free interchange of scientific knowledge, I believe that Clause 11 is in fact unnecessary. I do not think that so extreme a view has been put forward in the Debate up to now, but I cannot see how Clause 11 can be improved to remove the danger that I see in it, and therefore I consider that the Bill would be tremendously improved and greatly strengthened if Clause 11 were taken out altogether and if we entrusted the security of the State instead to the very great and considerable powers that are available under the Official Secrets Act. I do not think that it would have been necessary perhaps to take this rather extreme view about Clause 11 had the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply, who is responsible and who will be responsible in the future for the Bill if it becomes law, been prepared to take the advice already given to him and to agree to set up a statutory expert advisory committee. In fact, not only is the right hon. Gentleman against setting up such a committee

but he is going further than that, and by the Amendments already on the Order Paper he is prepared and ready actually to tighten up the working of Clause 11.
Among the duties of such an advisory committee might have been the giving of advice to the Minister as to the class of information that could be disclosed without Clause 11 being brought into operation. I believe that such a statutory advisory committee, whose advice the Minister should have been obliged to seek but not to take, would have greatly improved the legislation now before the House. If I may anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's answer I imagine that it will be on these lines. First of all, that he takes the best expert advice as a matter of routine. Of course, every Minister takes the best advice as a matter of routine; he would hardly dare confess that he takes the worst advice. But the truth is that his departmental experts are his creatures. I do not say that in any spirit of scorn, but they are bound to be his creatures in practice. I now suggest that there should be experts to advise the Minister who are abreast of the times and who are in a statutory position really to stand up to him.
I believe that the Minister has already indicated the second part of his answer by a nod of the head in reply to a question asked by an hon. Member earlier. I think it will be that nothing must stand between him and his responsibility to this House. That is an extraordinarily weak answer. I do not believe that in fact Parliament can exercise effective criticism over atomic energy development. Parliament has neither the time—which is increasingly true now that we are bringing so many industries under State control and national ownership—nor the necessary information. In the nature of things, because of the secrecy, it is not possible for the ordinary Member of this House to obtain the information which would make him a really useful critic. Here again I am emphasising something which has already been said, but it cannot be emphasised too much. Why, in this Bill, are we leaning so strongly towards the old-fashioned Post Office conception of public control? Expert bodies are in fashion; they are in fashion in connection with nearly every industry we bring under national ownership, and in that case surely in this matter too an expert body is wholly justified? I trust that


the right hon. Gentleman will really think again about this and that he will be prepared to relent, but from all I hear I am not too hopeful.
The immediate problem that we are facing in this matter of atomic energy is just this; How best can we protect the public interest and lead the way to international agreement without retarding the development of this new source of energy in the service of man? By this Bill the Government have undoubtedly tried to satisfy the test, but in my view far from successfully. Atomic energy is not a petty departmental matter; it is not a new line in utility saucepans, and it must receive treatment at the very highest level of State policy. In that connection may I say that I think it is a tremendous pity that there could not have been a Preamble to this Bill providing that anything done under its powers should be deemed illegal if it conflicted with any international agreement or surrender of national sovereignty in atomic energy to which this country is a party? I believe there are constitutional difficulties about this here. It was done in America and it is unfortunate that it cannot be done in connection with this Bill. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if, when he replies, he could give the House an assurance on that point—that anything we are doing in the domestic sense will be linked up as a matter of course with any international agreement to which this country is a party.
Finally, I feel that in passing this Bill we must make it plain to the world that we, the British people, are prepared to owe a first loyalty to world authority in this matter and hope that others are prepared to do the same, but that if they are not prepared to do the same we might act on our own to set a good example. Unless we act with good sense and imagination in this business it is the fiery furnace for all of us and our children.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I have listened throughout the afternoon and evening to this Debate. Perhaps it is the mood of the House or the aftermath of the Recess which accounts for the thin attendance, but I feel that here is something which we must watch very carefully indeed. If Clemenceau was right when he wrote that famous, historic message asking Wilson for oil, saying "A

drop of oil is worth a drop of blood," we have now reached a stage in society when a small particle of fissionable material is practically worth a kingdom. I want to emphasise Clause 11 for a moment. When the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) raised the issue on the Adjournment I did bring up this point about secrecy in the faculty of engineering physics at universities. I asked what effect it would have upon the furthering of knowledge in this sphere in the future. I have been thinking back to the days of 1799 and the Combination Acts, and remembering that it was this very House which, through a twisting of justice, sent people abroad and accused them of setting up secret societies when they formed trade union movements. Each step that modern society makes towards secrecy is a step towards misunderstanding.
Because of that I welcomed the eloquent and brilliant maiden speech here today by the hon. Member who said, "Here is an opportunity for Britain to give a lead." Although we are not dealing here with the relationship of atomic energy to the United Nations organisation —I do think, after reading the Bill, that we are really concerned with that aspect of it—yet it would have some effect upon international councils if this nation said it was prepared to put its cards face up upon the table and to say, "At least in this matter we do not propose to limit science or to make secrecy of it; we want to keep it open and above-board because we know that, in the last analysis, it is only by the United Nations and by international cooperation that we can abolish the fear of war."
I believe there is an aspect of this matter that we have missed. There is not only the fear of the tyranny of war but, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the fact that unless mankind is made fully aware of the potentialities of this energy we may, in the near future, suffer once again the acute miseries of another industrial revolution, conducted upon lines of complete laissez faire in atomic energy. Some people on both sides of the House seem to think that the Bill gives to the Minister power of nationalisation. I am not so sure about that. All we know is that atomic energy is not to be left in private hands but is to be under the control of a central authority.


Secondly, I gather from my reading of the Bill that it is to empower the Minister
to promote the development of atomic energy and to confer on him powers of control over unauthorised production … and the publication of certain information.
These powers are not compulsory or obligatory. They are merely permissive. The Minister is not obliged by the Bill to control or to do anything. He can do it if he feels like it. What is this House asking? Are we asking for a compulsory control of this material, or do we say that the Minister of Supply may be empowered to take control if he feels like it?
That point leads me to my second point. The positive value of atomic energy sources and their need for rapid development are by no means being realised. We seem to have missed the positive possibilities of industrial development. Although there are Amendments coming in the future, the Bill seems to aim only at restrictive control. Undoubtedly, by Clause 11, the Bill widens the area of scientific knowledge in which secrecy is to be maintained. I contend that it is impossible to draw the limits. It is ridiculous to talk of one type of scientist. The theorist in nuclear physics is linked with the fitter and the mechanic, with the most humble form of engineering and with the most humble scientific worker. I see Governments having great difficulty in the future if they try to implement Clause II.
I have listened with care to what all the scientific workers have said. I have read with interest the circular of the Association of Scientific Workers. Professor Blackett is the President of that Association. They did not publish that circular without using their powers of suspended judgment, and they ask, I think rightly, that the industrial development of atomic energy and of its by-products should be nationalised. There has been a hint in this Chamber this afternoon. An hon. Member was asking what would happen to byproducts and to private products. Both sides of the House seem to agree about nationalisation of atomic energy; are we prepared to nationalise all plant and all the by-products of all fissionable material in the future? We should have the courage to delete Clause 11 completely.
There is a third point which I would put to the Minister of Supply. If I have read the Bill correctly, the Minister has

no power to force a private laboratory or a private organisation to give him information of any new discoveries or advances that they make in nuclear physics. Lastly, and this is a very important point, I believe that a body should be appointed by the Bill, not entirely of scientific observers, but consisting of laymen, to give advice to the Minister. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) in many respects. I do not agree that we should fall for the apotheosis of the scientist, any more than for the rhetorical arpeggios that rocked Blackpool from end to end last week. I therefore request that there should be not only a body of scientific advisers or a committee of scientists to help the Minister, and independent of the Government, but that, together with that committee, there should be a group of laymen whose opinion the Government would respect. Before I sit down I would refer to the issue of the relationship of power to social development. Many of us, on both sides of the House, have tried to understand the evolution of mankind. Whatever political theory we may support we are bound to admit that, as man has conquered Nature with new sources of power, he has changed his own social development.
At this moment Britain can contribute to the building up of confidence in the United Nations organisation in a big way and to the building up of international understanding merely by wisely discussing this Bill and agreeing that we are prepared to take the risk—because risk it is—to abandon secrecy in Britain so far as the science of nuclear physics and the development of atomic energy are concerned while demanding the complete nationalisation of the fissionable material, the by-products and the commodities themselves that are the results of this science of nuclear physics.

8.1 p.m.

Major Vernon: It seems to me that we have come to a point when the views that have been expressed need crystallising into a practical proposition, and I propose to do that. As to the Prime Minister's statement that he intended that security should be safeguarded and that development should not be hindered, one wonders how that can be done. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton)


pointed out that he did not see how security in the sense of the Bill and development could take place at the same time, and I am quite sure that is correct. The advancement made in this particularly difficult scientific field has been the contribution of exceptional human beings, people with wide knowledge and intense capacity for concentration and an intensity of imagination which is exceptional. If we follow through the development that has led up to the present position, starting from Clarke Maxwell, an Englishman, we find many nations represented. These entirely exceptional people have cropped up at different times in different parts of the world. Until 1939 there was no secrecy at all. The work of each one of these people was available to the rest. There was first an Englishman, then a German, then a Frenchman (Bequerel), then Einstein a German, Bofir a Dane, Rutherford a New Zealander, several Englishmen, another Frenchman, an Italian, a Canadian and so on. This handful of exceptional people made this progress possible because there was complete inter-communication between them.
What will happen under this Bill if national security comes in? First the military scientists will be divided from the non-military scientists. Then the non-military scientists will be divided into compartments and all sorts of obstacles will be put in the way of inter-communication. A gradual paralysis will spread over the whole field of scientific work. The young man at the university will say that if he goes in for atomic research, he will be up against the Ministry at all points, and that if he makes a slip he may be in trouble and perhaps land in prison quite inadvertently. That kind of thing will be discouraging for people. We are finding it difficult to get people to go into the Army because conditions are not sufficiently attractive. This secrecy will have the same sort of effect on scientific aspirants, who will be disinclined to take up this field of activity which is vitally important.
What does this mean? The world is faced with a famine in fuel. There has been a ruthless destruction of forests followed by soil erosion. The best seams of our coal have gone and we can see the difficulty ahead. It may be a long way. There is a limited supply of oil in the world. It has been recklessly exploited.

The Americans are saying that their supplies are running short and that they need oil from the Middle East and so on. There is a prospect ultimately of a world famine. We should go back by stages to the Stone Age. There comes the possibility of a new sort of energy which will gradually replace the dwindling supplies that there are at present, and we are letting our military madness clamp down on this vital possibility for the future of mankind. I say military madness. I have always thought war was nonsense. Some hon. Members may think I am talking nonsense now but to me that seems plain common-sense. To settle disputes by ordinary warfare is not reasonable. We ought to be reasonable enough in these days to avoid mass destruction in order to settle our disputes. We are getting pretty near, but the excuse is made that somebody else must start. It is said that we must get international agreement and that once we have that we shall be happy to sacrifice our weapons and means for mass destruction.
But who is going to begin? It seems to me that Providence has directed Britain to take a lead for this reason. It was pointed out that 50 atomic bombs would put the organisation of Britain completely out of action. That is not a difficult calculation—one bomb, one city or centre of production. It was also suggested that 2,000 bombs would be sufficient to put out Russia or the United States. How many bombs have we had a chance of making? It cost the Americans £500,000,000 to make a number which has not been published but there are indications that it is something in the area of half a dozen or a dozen. We are proposing to spend £30,000,000 which will make us a few bombs, but what chance have we from the military point of view of ever competing with these people with much ampler resources? So there is a practical reason for saying that we could never succeed and never be secure by manufacturing more of these bombs than other people. What we need to be more secure is to give it up altogether.
In the Debate on 2nd August speakers on all sides of the House agreed that now was the time for Britain to take a lead. The Americans have put forward their proposals and the Russians have put forward theirs, and there is a vital conflict between them—something not very far


from a deadlock. The Minister of State said Britain agrees with both sides. He meant Britain agreed with the noble sentiments of both sides. Noble sentiments have been the stock-in-trade of eminent speakers all over the world the whole time, but the general public are a bit cynical of noble sentiments and want something really practical proposed. Here is a chance for us to prove our sincerity. It is not entirely devoid of self-interest. The two things happen by luck to come together. By declaring that we will deny ourselves the making of atomic bombs in the future we shall be giving a lead in the international sphere which will be a step in the right direction. That seems the direction in which we ought to move and a practical step that we ought to make—to declare that we shall not make atomic bombs ourselves. Once that is agreed, all this question of Clause 11 and the secrecy here and there disappears. There is no need for any secrecy at all.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: We have had a long, and on the whole a rather depressing, Debate this afternoon on this important subject of atomic energy. My reason for intervening is that I still feel there are certain implications in this Bill which have not even yet been fully brought before the House. We are concerned this evening with the consideration of the greatest discovery that the human race has ever made— atomic energy—comparable only, as a turning-point in history, with the discovery of fire in the distant days of primitive man. We are concerned with a discovery which, it is no exaggeration to say, is in its potentialities producing a revolution in human conditions. It will provide the supreme test of man's ability in the moral sphere to cope with his immense scientific achievements.
I doubt whether in this country we are as atomic energy-conscious as they are in the United States of America. I doubt whether the people of this country have really yet awakened to the new era in which we are living as a result of this tremendous scientific discovery. Less than 15 months ago, when the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the whole world was momentarily stunned and horror-struck, notwithstanding all the horrors to which we had became accus-

tomed during the war. But that phase has passed and there has been, in this country, a lack of public appreciation of the real significance of this important subject. I believe relatively few people realise the two alternatives with which mankind is now faced. On the one hand, if national dissensions continue as they have in the past, we are faced in the next war with an atomic conflict which will threaten the continuation of civilisation, and perhaps even the human race will be utterly destroyed. We are faced with a new weapon of warfare which at the least will involve, certainly to this country and, I have no doubt, to the other belligerents who take part in it, an almost total paralysis of their existing civilisation. The other alternative is that mankind may wake up to the realisation of the potentialities for good that are involved in this new scientific discovery, and may determine by resolution and international action and by international good will, to ensure that the human race is saved from atomic disaster and enabled to enjoy the long vista of progress and the beneficent improvements which this source of energy opens up.
It is in this background that we have to consider the proposals of His Majesty's Government in this Bill. This is a Bill for giving the Government control of the development and production of atomic energy. The reason why this Bill is before the House is that our national security requires it—that is the justification for the Bill, and nobody opposes the Second Reading. Indeed I thought the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) was instructive. He realised that, for purposes of national security, it is now essential to vest these vast powers in the Government, as otherwise the safety of the State would be jeopardised. It follows, as the use of atomic energy is extended, that for precisely the same reasons, it will be necessary by measures of nationalisation of one industry and another to give the State equal control over an increasingly wide field of industrial activity in order to ensure that the State has within its control all the industrial capacity of the State required to protect the community in time of danger. In the atomic age envisaged by this Bill one must be prepared at all times to meet a possible attack.
My second comment is, that just as the justification for this Bill is the safety of the realm, so it is the duty of the Government to see whether in that respect the Bill goes far enough. It cannot be assumed that the atomic bomb or any contrivances using the release of atomic energy represent the only direction, or even the most effective one, in which science can be perverted to the uses of total war, threatening on a large scale the destruction of the human race. Other weapons of destruction, scientific and bacteriological have been mentioned. It seems to me that in those fields also the Government should take all essential steps of a similar nature that are required for the protection of the State.
Having said that, one must realise, as previous speakers have realised, that this Bill in its present form, which is going to receive unanimous support on Second Reading, contains certain defects, certain dangers. I regard one of the chief defects of the Bill the emphasis it places on the negative action of the State. I regard it as unfortunate if, as a result of this Bill, any idea is encouraged that atomic energy is to be regarded as primarily an instrument of warfare, in the form of atomic bombs, to be used mainly for destructive purposes. It is regrettable that during the last year there has been such a veil of mystery and secrecy surrounding the whole of this subject. It is unfortunate that emphasis has been placed on the atomic bomb, and the destruction it can cause, while less attention, in the public mind, has been given to the immense potential benefits that can be obtained by research into atomic energy. When the Minister of Supply replies, I hope he will be able to give the House an assurance that, notwithstanding the somewhat vague provisions in the Bill, energetic steps will be taken to encourage the research and development of atomic energy for peaceful, beneficent purposes.
The other criticism of the Bill is of course its encroachment on our traditional and cherished freedom of intellectual and scientific research. That way points to disaster unless carefully watched, as the example of Germany has shown us. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that those powers with which, in the interests of national safety, he is being entrusted will be exercised at all times with the greatest circumspection and toler-

ance, and that the views of scientists throughout the country will not be lightly disregarded. In view of the detailed discussions that have already taken place with regard to the phraseology of Clause II and the definition Clause in the Bill, I do not propose to enlarge on the improvements which, in my view, can be made in order to remove the natural alarm of scientific workers throughout the country.
Finally, I would suggest that the State should assume the positive task of seeing that the House and the public are periodically informed of the progress that is being made in regard to nuclear fission, and all aspects of scientific inquiry covered by this Bill. It is difficult to exaggerate the necessity of ensuring that, as a corollary of the powers now being entrusted to the Government, the Minister should see that the public are educated, and kept informed, by the publication of the fullest possible information at all times, compatible with the security of the State, of the progress being made, and the opportunities that are opened up so that we may have an enlightened public opinion about the munificent illimitable potentialities of atomic energy.

8.22 p.m.

Dr. Barnet Stress: May I first say that I support very strongly indeed my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) in deploring the fact that so much is said about the negative or destructive aspects of atomic physics, and little is said about the many remarkable things it can do which will save life? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) has already touched upon this matter. To put it shortly, this discovery can be used either for war, or constructively, for purposes of industry by begetting a new and cheap type of power. Certainly—and this is the point I would like to bring to the attention of the House—it might be used to save life medically. I am not one who fears that war is at all likely in the near future. I do not despair of human beings. I do not think they would be so foolish as to destroy themselves so soon after the last war. At least a generation of people will be needed who will have forgotten what we in this generation have gone through before they are tempted again into such folly.
It is from this point of view that secrecy becomes a danger in the way which so many speakers have already stressed. We hope that the public will be kept aware of the dangers of the misuse of this type of power. Quite recently I noted that evidence was given before a committee in the United States by some of their military experts. One of them pointed out that it was possible to fight a defensive war and prevent the invasion of North America, but possibly at the cost of 40 million lives lost and the obliteration of most of their cities, if other countries had possession of the atomic bomb.
This perhaps might be construed to be a good thing to be understood by so great a Power, for it would help them, I feel sure, if they are wise, to refuse to allow the misuse of atomic energy; but others of us are afraid that there are some sections of military opinion in the United States which feel that, if this really be true, a defensive war might well be fought in the near future so as to make it impossible for anyone in the world ever to gain atomic energy which could be used against them. There indeed would lie madness. I firmly believe that sane councils will prevail and in my view there is no chance of anything horrible like this happening in our lifetime.
I support this Bill wholeheartedly and, in passing, I would like to say that it is incredible for any of us to believe that any of this type of work can fall into private hands without the greatest danger. Though I support the Bill, I am afraid of one thing. It is that secrecy might militate against discovery or application to medical use of atomic energy and nuclear physics which would enable us to cure certain diseases which have baffled us in the past. It is well known today that it is possible to make many substances radioactive which were not radioactive originally, or which are not normally radioactive, and that the radioactivity of these substances can be controlled because their activity disappears either in a few hours, days or weeks. Many hon. Members will remember the dreadful fate which befell girls who used to paint the dials of watches with radioactive material in the old days. When painting these luminous dials they had a habit of putting the tip of the brush to their lips and licking it to keep a point

on it. It was not recognised that there was sufficient radioactivity in the luminous paint to produce death. We know today that it was cumulative in its effect, and many girls died rather horribly as a result.
The new substances we can check completely. For example, we know that radioactive phosphorus loses its radioactivity within 48 hours. We can have either tablets or pills and can take them by mouth and we are able to estimate the dose and know exactly where it will be deposited, namely in the bone of the human body. If a patient has any disease which may be susceptible to radioactivity, it can be treated, therefore, with some confidence. Though I would not have anyone believe that our experiments have gone as far as we would like, it is a fact that conditions of myelogenous leucaemia, a condition in the bone marrow which is always fatal, is now thought to be amenable to treatment with radioactive phosphorus. It is well within the bounds of possibility that if we can have full research on this subject with the assistance of the Minister and his Department, without too much secrecy and with a guarantee to the whole world that our discoveries will be given to them immediately if they provide a means for saving life, we shall be able to get a whole range of radioactive substances with the correct and accurate doses, knowing that these substances will be deposited in selected parts of the human body, and the diseases of cancer of the bone and cancer of the internal organs may, for the first time, be amenable to treatment.
Lastly, most of us suspect that human morality lags behind scientific achievement. That is really what we are worried about and why we are all so frightened today. International affairs have been likened recently to a game of cards in which some hold most of the trumps and those who hold most of the trumps seem to want to look at the cards of their opponents before they will disclose what they have got themselves. I think from this House we can appeal to the whole of the world to take a more realistic and sane view of international affairs, and say that where everything is to be lost by not taking a commonsense humane and human point of view, surely everything is to be gained by honesty and by open diplomacy.

8.30 p.m.

Dr. Santo Jeger: We have heard a great deal in the past, and in the very recent past, from hon. Members of the Opposition about the Government policy of nationalisation, but we have not heard any attack upon this Bill, which is a Bill for the national control of atomic energy. It is a Bill which enforces nationalisation and it is consistent with the policy of the Government. If we are very optimistic about the future, we regard these proposals for national control as part of a plan for creating technical facilities and for the extension of technical knowledge in anticipation of world cooperation on this matter in the very near future, so that British work can contribute fully to the material and moral advance of civilisation. This international cooporation must be at Government level; hence all these facilities must be in Government hands, but if the worst were to happen and if bomb-making were to become the chief interest rather than power production, still less must these facilities be left in private hands. Without international cooperation, we cannot separate the peaceful from the warlike side of this work.
The Minister depends upon a number of advisers, not only scientists but technicians, not only those in the Government service but also the large number of experts from industry and from the university laboratories. I am very glad to see that there is provision in this Bill to encourage the training of scientific personnel and to safeguard the facilities of teaching establishments. It has been suggested that the Minister should provide himself with an advisory council, a council of experts and scientists who shall meet and give him advice which he is free to take or not to take, just as he wishes. Now, that advice cannot be made public, and, if it is not accepted, what is gained? All the members of this proposed advisory committee would not be equally informed upon all the facts in connection with their work, because the work is one of a very high degree of specialisation and a very important part of it would be engineering work. Since the Minister is able now to call upon the advice and help of all scientists, whether they are in Government service or not, it seems to me that he has all the possibilities at his disposal for getting the very best advice and

taking advantage of it. I therefore see nothing whatever to be gained by his accepting the proposal for creating an advisory council.
There is one other aspect of this matter that has not been touched upon very much in this Debate. The Smythe Report, issued by the United States Government for the development of atomic energy for military purposes, talks a great deal about safeguarding the workers in the atomic energy industry, and I want to carry that further and talk, not only about safeguards for the workers in the industry, but about safeguards for the country surrounding the sites of factories where atomic energy is created, and safeguards for humanity generally. The Smythe Report compares in many places the effects of radio-activity on the human body with the effects of X-rays. We know a great deal about the effects of X-rays on men's bodies. We know that large doses of X-rays, and even, in some cases, small doses, may cause sterilisation of the individual. We may get burns, cancer and destruction of blood corpuscles. We know that X-ray workers provide themselves with lead screens, lead aprons, and lead gloves in order to protect themselves from these X-ray emanations.
The Smythe Report says that there were no sure means for determining the adequacy of their precautions. We know that the Americans have been using very dense, very thick barriers made of concrete and that they have had difficulties in preventing radioactive air particles from coming outside the area where the atomic energy is being manufactured. But we do not know, and we have no evidence what the long term effects of these emanations may be. We know the short term effects— the effects of the bomb. We get radio activity in the atmosphere round the pile, in the stocks and residue, in the water used for cooling. If I may quote the Smythe Report again:
A combination of the alpha ray activity of plutonium and its chemical properties makes it one of the most dangerous substances known if it gets into the human body.
We have not had very much information about the danger, or about the steps we are going to take. With industrial diseases hitherto it has been usual to call in doctors after the event. Never before have we had an opportunity of calling them in advance of it. Therefore, I am


proposing the setting up of another kind of advisory council. I want a competent committee of biologists and doctors to engage in research on this very important question. I want to see individuals, their wellbeing, and the whole future of the human race safeguarded now that we are entering upon this new atomic age.

8.37 p.m.

Sir William Darling: There are, perhaps, a few moments left in which I may make an observation on this subject which has not already been made in the Debate. The subject we are discussing is a tragic one. I think that the Minister is being set up as a pill to cure an earthquake which involves the whole of this planet of ours and that we are faced, not with an occasion for the glorification of the disciples of nationalisation and collectivism, but with something really opposite. We are faced with the bankruptcy of those human institutions of ours, whether nations or collections of nations. We are being forced back, not with the banners of the National Socialist system flying, but with what we individualists have always said must be the solution of the destiny of man—the improvement of the individual and not the improvement of the machinery of the State.
I am not among those who are enamoured of handing over this important method of research to the State. We are in a pitiable position for making a world appeal. We have no power in the matter. There are only 50 million inhabitants in this small island on the North-West coast of Europe. Our place in the scheme of things is obliterated if space is the criterion. It lies with the great land masses of the Continent and those which run through France to China and from Alaska down to Cape Horn. Islands such as ours can only appeal to what little common sense there is in the universe today. Therefore, it seems to me that the State is not the best instrument for making that appeal. If we are to make the appeal on the highest level it should be made to men of science everywhere, irrespective of nationalistic considerations. Such an appeal may well fail; it may be addressed to deaf ears and the men of science may be no more altruistic and no less nationalistic than would a Government in this matter. But the attempt has not been made. We

need a scientific council in this country above politics and party.
Is it not possible to make an international appeal that this danger of atomic energy, which may destroy the whole planet on which we live, should be raised above the nationalistic level? This Bill does not seek to do that for one moment. It embraces the problem with all the advantages and disadvantages, and in my judgment the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. It embraces all the disadvantages of the nationalist system. We are saying, "This is the British atomic energy research," "This is the United States atomic energy research," "This is the atomic research of the U.S.S.R." and so on. We are building up in the most dangerous manner possible a system not of competing scientists or individuals but competing State machines. That may be an impossible position, but it seems to me that this Bill moves into that field rather than the field of making the widest possible appeal to the scientists as individuals and human beings to join with other scientists on the highest human level. This is the bankruptcy of statesmanship. This is the hopelessness of nationalisation, and, carried into the international sphere backed by narrow nationalism, it seems to be confusion worse confounded and despair piled upon despair.
The next observation I wish to make is more limited and local. I do not often find in this House special references made to that part of the country from which I come. I may be filled with a sinister lack of appreciation, but there is a very lengthy reference to Scotland in this Bill. What does it mean? Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies. Why this somewhat lengthy Clause 19 with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)? I know there is a difference between Scottish and English law, especially as regards land, but are we being offered the suggestion that possibly some of the experiments begun at Didcot are to be transferred to Scotland, and, if so, is that of hope for Scotland or is it a matter for regret? Perhaps the Minister will tell us why on this occasion Scotland has such a prominent consideration in this Bill for the development of atomic energy and the control of such development. It is not often that Scotland acquires the interest which it has on this occasion. I


hope there is nothing sinister about it, and with that observation I will resume my seat.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: During the speech in which the Prime Minister introduced this Bill he used one or two phrases of which I made a note. One phrase was this: "If we can be assured that it will be used for peaceful purposes only," and later on he said: "The United Nations organisation exists to free the world from the possibility of atomic war." I maintain that in the course of his speech the Prime Minister made the assumption, as every one of us must make, that ultimately an international organisation will be created which can control internationally the production and development of atomic energy. Throughout the speeches of practically every hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate that assumption has also been made, sometimes explicitly and sometimes by implication. I would like to develop that theme a little, because I do not believe that any Member in this House could pass this Bill, unless we all automatically assumed that it was leading towards an effective international control. If that is not so, then this Bill is the beginning of the arms race. It is either the beginning of the arms race, or else we believe—and we cannot vote for it otherwise—that it is possible to create an effective international organisation in time.
Since that seems to me to be the core of the problem, I would like to spend a few minutes pointing out some of the in-consistences in the existing international system that is now at our disposal. What we all want today—all mankind everywhere, as I see it—is to create an international organisation which can make regulations to control our behaviour in various ways, particularly with regard to the development of atomic explosives. It seems to me also to be true that the effectiveness of law tends to diminish as the size of the unit to which we endeavour to apply it progressively increases. If law is not effective and cannot be enforced it is no good.
I would try to illustrate that in the following way. During the war, and in certain instances even today, there is in operation an Order on the Statute Book,

namely, the Essential Work Order. Under that Order an employer, a company, is not allowed to fire its employee and the employee is not allowed to give notice to his employer, the company. Anyone like myself, who has had practical experience of the working of that Order, and who is prepared to be honest about it, will I think admit that he has seldom known of an employee who has successfully evaded the working of that law, while it is equally true to say that practically every company can, when it wishes, evade that law. That is not because the employer is any more wicked or sinister or subtle than his employee. It is merely an illustration of the fact that that single law is applied in that instance to two different sizes of unit, the small unit being the individual and the large unit being the company. As the unit to which the law is applied increases in size the effectiveness or the enforcibility of that law diminishes.
Another illustration is that of litigation with regard to patent law. Towards the end of the war, sponsored by the Board of Trade, I went over to the United States to try to work some British patents some of which I owned myself. Immediately I landed in the United States, I learned that the value of a British patent had no relation at all to the intrinsic worth of the patent itself, or how well it was covered by the specification. It depended entirely upon the amount of cash one was prepared to put behind the patent in the event of litigation. That is because nowadays patents are not generally owned by individuals, nor are they infringed by individuals. They are largely owned or infringed by vast industrial corporations, and for that reason, patent law is practically unenforcible and almost entirely unpredictable. Litigation goes on for years and years; the only people who understand it or who make anything out of it are the learned counsel; and the decision, when it is ultimately made, is generally reversed in a higher court of law. In this instance the law, because it is applied to a gigantic unit, a big corporation, is almost totally a farce.
If we go one stage further, we observe that in the world today the United Nations organisation is endeavouring to make laws or regulations for the biggest unit known to man, namely, the national sovereign state; and it is impossible so to do. We cannot make effective, enforceable law and apply it to that size of unit. It


cannot be done. The frustration which is evident in international affairs today is not in any way due to the unwillingness of statesmen to work that machinery. It is frankly due to the fact that it is humanly impossible for them to do so. The whole of the United Nations charter is founded upon the fact that its members are states and that the function of the organisation is to make laws and regulations for the behaviour of states. The analogy which I have given shows it cannot be done. Moreover, there is an interesting extract, which I have here, from the Nuremberg trial. During the trial one of the counsel for the defence argued that the crime could not justifiably be laid at the door of his client but was really the crime of the Third Reich; to which argument the American prosecutor, Justice Jackson, replied in these words:
The idea that a State any more than a corporation can commit crimes is a fiction. Crimes always are committed by persons. That fictional being, the State, cannot be produced for trial, cannot plead, cannot testify, and cannot be sentenced.
Nevetheless, if you will read the Charter of the United Nations you will find we are trying to do precisely that—the impossible. What, obviously, we must try to do now is to set up an international organisation that can make, and has the power to endeavour to make, laws which can be applied. Learning the lesson of our experience, we find that effective law is law which is applied to the smallest unit—the individual, the person. If we can give our international authority the power to make laws which can be enforced, we may then, I believe, get effective international control. If or when we succeed in doing that, we shall have changed the United Nations organisation into a world government; nothing short of that can save us from catastrophe.
I go back to the point from which I started. In so far as this Bill means anything except the beginning of an arms race, it means that we know that the task ahead of us is to create world government; because, unless we do that there can be no peace. I believe it can be done, and that it can be done in time. But I do not believe—and this is where I take exception to one or two other speakers—I do not believe it can now be done on the level of governments or by statesmen. It can only be done by the people of the

world themselves; and it can be done by them. I should like to conclude then, by quoting the words of the President of the Board of Trade, who made a speech on this very subject early this year. I think he hit the nail firmly and correctly on the head. He said:
I do not doubt the willingness of statesmen, but the task is so great and so urgent that we cannot hope to get it carried through unless we have the driving power of world public opinion behind it.
I believe that that driving power of world public opinion can be got behind it, and that it can do the job in time. I wish I could tell the House how that could be done, but I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would probably rule me out of Order. This is certainly not the moment for that discussion. The last word then that I want to say to anyone listening, or who will read my speech is this: I believe it can be done. I am quite convinced it must be done.

8.54 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): We have had a long, interesting and thoughtful Debate on this matter, and a number of points have been raised of considerable importance. I should like to reply to them. May I at the outset assure the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that there is no sinister intention directed to Scotland? Scottish law differs from our own, and it is necessary, since this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will apply to the whole of Britain, that there should be provisions for applying it to Scotland, in view of the different legal system; there is nothing more sinister than a proper respect for Scottish legal tradition.
May I also say to the hon. Member for the Acock's Green Division of Birmingham (Mr. Usborne) that it is one of the primary purposes of this Bill to put the British Government in a position to carry out, within its territory, the obligations which we hope will be the substance of international agreement very soon; and it is, as the hon. Member says, quite impossible that an international authority should be able to make a law which will be binding on all the subjects of all the States, unless the States which are parties to the agreement are prepared to pass laws of their own giving effect to it. Obviously, no international agreement to limit the use of atomic energy to peaceful purposes would be of use unless the


signatory governments were able themselves to control their own nationals in the use that they were making of this new source of power.
The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench with charm, moderation and reasonableness accepted the necessity for this Bill. He rightly drew attention to the negative and restrictive appearance which its Clauses have, and he admitted that this was necessary owing to the nature of the subject, but I Would point out that the Bill begins with a positive and constructive purpose. It begins by laying upon the Minister the duty of producing atomic energy, of carrying out research and development, and doing all that is necessary to carry this new science forward. That is the positive part of it; it is not in very great detail—

Mr. Pickthorn: It has no sanctions.

Mr. Wilmot: It has the usual general Parliamentary sanctions, that the Minister must exercise his functions adequately and properly to the satisfaction of Parliament. This is an entirely new thing, a new human activity, and the Bill lays upon the Government, through the Minister of Supply, the duty of doing what is necessary to be done. It is not in great detail because this is a new science, there is far more to learn than the little which is already known, and therefore it is brief in compass if very wide in scope. But, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger), it is a fact that in the present state of our knowledge experiments with, and steps towards the production of, materials used for the production of atomic energy are fraught with great peril, not only to those engaged in them but to people in the vicinity, if they are not conducted in a proper way with adequate safeguards. It is not only the defence aspect of this matter that makes it necessary to have these restrictions upon the manner in which the work is carried out, but the danger of calamity in the course of the work.
That, I think, is the main reason why, on the face of it, the Bill appears to be mainly of a restrictive and negative character, but in fact of course it is the opening of a great new positive work. The right hon. Gentleman—rightly, I think—raised the point that this science

will march forward only if the scientists are able to work at it in their own way, and one of the things which the Minister, his adviser- and assistants must guard against in building their organisation is that the scientists shall be confined and treated as civil servants or, as the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) put it, required to clock on and off. Scientists do not do good work in those conditions, it is pointed out. Well, Sir, there will be scientific people working in Government establishments, there will be many more, in time, working outside Government establishments, in universities and later on in industry. I do not believe that there is any risk or danger that the scientific men who will be doing this work will be subject to any more irksome or tiresome restrictions which would hamper them in their work than scientists working in other departments in Government establishments or for industry. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right to call attention to the danger of not realising that scientific people need a free atmosphere in which they can do their best work.
Something was said about the delay in introducing the Bill. The Bill was introduced as far back as 1st May. There has been deliberately left this rather long period between First Reading and publication of the Bill and this Second Reading Debate because this is so novel a subject, and because it is so important that it should be understood and the Government's proposals widely appreciated, and so that the Government should be able to benefit from the advice and informed criticisms which we hoped would come in from many sources as a result of its publication. What we hoped for has happened, and a very considerable volume of advice, criticism and help has come to us, upon which we have pondered and in many cases acted. Hon. Members will notice upon the Order Paper a number of Amendments of substance which I have put down as a result of discussions and correspondence with people in scientific occupations and men engaged in these pursuits, with industrialists and others, who have seen that the Bill could be improved. We are most happy to meet the suggestions, and I would commend a study of these Amendments and their effects upon the Bill to hon. Members between now and the Committee stage. One of these Amendments will be of con-


siderable interest to the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) and others, because I have deliberately put it down to require the Minister to give his permission for the communication of information, unless he is satisfied that to do so would be dangerous on defence grounds. It is a very wide and far-reaching Amendment which goes a long way to meet the very natural criticism which has been made about that part of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) with others says, very rightly, that everything depends upon the spirit in which the Government will act and use the powers which will be granted under this Bill. What sort of drive and energy is to be put up behind it? What indications have already been given that the Government are tackling this thing with the full purpose which its importance deserves? It is not easy at the moment at this early stage to give a wealth of concrete evidence, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government regard this matter as the most important subject of all, and, if I may say so, I think the appointment of so distinguished and eminent a person as Lord Portal of Hungerford as the Controller of Production of Atomic Energy in the Ministry of Supply is an indication of our intention to find the best possible people to carry on this most important of all work. Already we are hard at work, as the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said, with the research establishment in his constituency. It is robbing us of labour and materials which are badly needed for housing and industry, but, as he so generously said, he recognised the necessity of devoting all that was necessary to make the utmost speed with these preparations. I can say very little more than that. The limiting factor is not any lack of energy on the part of the Administration; it is the sheer limit of labour and materials which we can get for the job. Our productive capacity, as the House knows, is strained in every direction but we are doing our utmost, by every possible means, to press this matter forward. The hon. Member who said it was incumbent on the Government from time to time to make, as it were, progress reports to the House, and to take the House into their confidence as to how

this matter was progressing, made a timely suggestion, and one which we shall be pleased to act upon.
I turn to some of the more detailed points which have been raised during the Debate. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked about the Special Order procedure. It is rather a Parliamentary legal point, and probably there are Members here tonight who are more qualified to deal with it than I, but, as I understand it, the special procedure which it is proposed to use for the Orders to be made under Section 7 dealing with the acquisition of minerals, has been selected in order to give the utmost safeguard to the affected subject. The Minister may go in and work the minerals, and it is proposed to use this procedure as a means of giving the utmost protection. Any Special Procedure Order, before being laid before Parliament, must be advertised and served on the persons affected. They can make objections and cause local inquiries to be held, and take other steps, with which Members are familiar, to safeguard their interests and to see that Parliament is well aware of all that is going on. This was felt to be particularly appropriate, in view of the wide powers over property with which the Minister is endowed in these Orders.
I would like to refer for a moment or two to the very interesting and attractive maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ilford (Mr. Ranger). I listened to it with the greatest interest, but I cannot say that I agree with it. I really do not feel that we should be furthering the cause of international peace if we in this country, alone and by ourselves, simply refused to go on with the science and production of atomic energy. That does not seem to be the solution of this problem. Surely, we have to play our part in getting an international agreement which wall be carried out, and in seeing that this great sphere of human knowledge is used for man's welfare, and not for his destruction. The easy way of washing our hands of the whole business seems to help us not at all. I would, however, like to compliment my hon. Friend on the attractive way in which he presented his argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) asked me whether I would give an undertaking that nothing would be done under this Bill which was


inconsistent with any international obligations, either existing now, or, when entered into, existing then. I freely and willingly give that undertaking. I said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to put the Government in a position to carry out their international obligations.
I was asked if I could say how these provisions compared with similar provisions abroad. In foreign countries the background is very different, and the provisions are different. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the question which the hon. Member asked. Regard has to be had to previous legislation in those countries as, indeed, the references in this Bill show that we have had to have it here. I would like to say that immediately this Bill was drafted, copies were sent to all of the Dominions. I understand that Bills either have been or are in the course of being prepared and passed in each of the Dominions to carry out similar if not exactly identical provisions.
I would like to deal with what I think was the main contention of a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for King's Norton, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton) and others, and that was that they would feel much happier if there were included in the Bill the provision of an advisory committee of scientists to advise the Minister. I have given that suggestion, which, on the face of it, is a very natural one in dealing with so expert and difficult a subject as this, and with a Minister who is admittedly no scientist, very careful consideration. I think that I am right in saying that there is not in fact very much between us on the matter. There is at present the practice of taking advice of all the leading scientists who can contribute anything to this matter. I do not think that it would be wise, for several reasons, to have a statutory fixed body of scientists who inevitably would become a screen between the Minister and his direct Parliamentary responsibility.

Mr. Blackburn: The scientists, as I understand it, would, most of them, be prepared to accept it outside the Bill, assuming that the Minister was prepared to indicate that he would appoint a committee of scientists and engineers engaged

in the problem to advise him. Do I understand that that is accepted by him?

Mr. Wilmot: No. I do not think that it would be any more acceptable than if it were mentioned in the Bill. It is not only unacceptable but it is unnecessary. Obviously, it would be impossible for any Minister to carry out this work unless he had the advice of scientific, engineering and other expert people, and unless the Minister is utterly incompetent and incapable and unworthy of the confidence of this House he will seek the very best advice he can possibly obtain.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the Minister give the objections to publishing the names of the people on whose advice he is going to rely?

Mr. Wilmot: Obviously, ever since this work began there has been daily consultation with the scientists. It would be wrong to have a picture of a group of scientists sitting round a table and constituting themselves an advisory committee. This subject flows out into every branch of knowledge. It is necessary to consult people here, there and everywhere on a whole range of topics. The whole fabric of human life is affected by these vast, revolutionary discoveries. If we were to get together in one place permanently all the people whose advice we seek from time to time as the work develops, we should have a mass meeting. We should be quite incapable of conducting business on those lines. Various officers and scientific people on the staff of the establishments are continually in touch with other scientific men in the universities, in industry, and with the main streams of scientific thought; and I suggest that is the only way in which the people who have the actual administration of this work can keep themselves in phase with the development of science as they go. We cannot isolate a body of people and call them an advisory committee.

Mr. Blackburn: America and Australia do.

Mr. Wilmot: That would not necessarily make it the right thing to do.

Mr. Blackburn: It can be done.

Mr. Wilmot: I am not saying that it cannot be done, but that it would not be a good thing. It would not improve the organisation and the objects which we


have in view. There is no point in setting up an advisory committee for the sake of it. Naturally, this work is carried on with the continual advice of all the people who have anything to contribute, and it will continue to be so. Therefore, I have to say it is not necessary.

Commander Noble: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he say how the Committee which has been presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) now stands?

Mr. Wilmot: Yes. I ought to have mentioned that. There is, of course, a most important advisory body, the Anderson Committee as it is called, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities, which advises the Prime Minister and the Government generally upon the whole problem and upon which there sit a number of distinguished scientists; but that is a broader approach to the matter— the general policy of the thing rather than the day-to-day carrying on of the business. That is done by officers of the Ministry of Supply, under the direction of Lord Portal of Hungerford, and that distinguished atomic scientist Professor Cockcroft, who is in charge of the experimental establishment at Harwell. It is those day-to-day workers who are in touch all the time with the scientific people all over the country.
The second main criticism of the Bill— and I think the most substantial—was with regard to the vital Clause 11, which deals with the giving of information about plant used for the production of atomic energy. I admit right away that the drafting of this Clause inevitably presents the greatest fundamental difficulty. How is it possible to reconcile these two apparently opposite objectives? We have to secure the non-disclosure of things which may be dangerous, or things which it is undesirable to disclose for reasons of defence. At the same time we have to secure, as many hon. Members very rightly pointed out, that there is a free interchange and flow of scientific opinion, because only in such an atmosphere can science live at all. These two difficult and contradictory objectives have somehow got to be faced. Clause 11 is admit-

tedly the best compromise we have been able to make up to now between those two objectives.
The Clause allows complete freedom over the whole field unassociated with atomic energy plant. It is the plant which is made the objective of the restriction, and there is no restriction at all upon the exchange of basic scientific information. It is the information concerned with the plant and what the plant does which is the subject of these restrictions. But I do appreciate that Clause 11 read with Clause 18 is restrictive in operation inevitably.
I have done my very best to find ways in which we can limit its effects in that direction. As I have said I have put down an Amendment which will require the Minister not to withhold his consent unless he is satisfied that by giving it he would be doing something dangerous to the safety of the State. That goes a very long way. Secondly, I am prepared—and I think the hon. Member for King's Norton will be interested in this—in relation to Clauses 10 and 11, to free the ordinary laboratory tools of the nuclear physicist which have no defence significance by exeluding them from the terms of any Order which I may make under Clause 10; and as soon as the Bill becomes law to confer with the physicists and scientists who will be affected with a view to making an Order under Clause 11 to exclude those tools from the categories of plant about which communication is forbidden. I think that will go a very long way to meet the very natural views which have been expressed in many quarters of the House, and I would add that I am prepared to confer with the scientists in the drafting of this Order which will let out the normal tools of their profession.
I think that covers the main points which have been raised and I should like to express my very deep appreciation of the very helpful Debate which we have had. The importance of this new source of power for peaceful purposes yet remains to be measured. This science, new as it is, has its beginnings some time back in the work of Madame Curie and Lord Rutherford and others in this country. A great step forward was made on the eve of the war and it so happens that on the scientific road to the production of power from nuclear energy we passed the


point at which we can produce this terrifying explosive instrument. In those circumstances our minds have been focused rather on this sideline of the development of atomic energy which had such devastating results and possibilities. But the main stream of the advance is, of course, towards the production of power from this source, and here, in spite of what has been said in some quarters, I am advised that it is a little too early to make definite and accurate predictions as to how near or otherwise this new source of power is to our grasp for application. I think therefore that we have to make our forecasts with some caution. The fact that the nuclear fission reaction leads to the release of a million times more energy from a given weight of matter than would be released by any chemical process such as burning or the detonation of T.N.T., is a sufficient indication of the potential importance of this subject and justifies the steps which have been taken in this Bill.
I am advised by the experts that it may prove later on not to be necessary to use the nuclear fission method at all, and that we may find means to liberate atomic energy by different methods altogether. It is certain already that atomic energy can be used to produce new radioactive materials in considerable quantities and that with their aid new fields of research and application are opened in biology and medicine and in many branches of industry where these radioactive atoms can be used to follow chemical reactions and other processes.
The use of atomic energy as a source of power will depend upon the successful solution of a number of hitherto unsolved technical problems. The chief of these is that associated with the generation of heat in the process, at a temperature sufficiently high to use directly for the generation of electricity instead of using some other form of fuel. The recent report to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission by Mr. Baruch shows that a body of American experts consider that electricity can be generated in the near future at atomic energy stations at a cost comparable with that of using coal or oil fuel. I would hasten to point out that the report stresses the need for finding the solution of a number of still unsolved technical problems of some magnitude. In some quarters the report is thought to be somewhat over-optimistic. It is there-

fore probably wise, in the present state of our knowledge, to keep an open mind on such questions until the outlook has been cleared by further research and development work. Of one thing we can be sure, that the new discoveries have in store very great things for mankind.

Commander Noble: Before the Minister concludes, can he say anything about the military liaison committee to which I referred?

Mr. Wilmot: I am afraid that that matter is outside the realm of the Minister of Supply. I think the question should be addressed, if I may suggest it, to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to delay the Bill, but the Minister was asked which Minister, whether himself or another, has responsibility for the survey of raw materials in the dominions of the Crown outside this country and not self-governing. Can he give the answer to that question?

Mr. Wilmot: I think the answer is, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Friday.—[Captain Michael Stewart.]

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY [Money]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
'That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the development of atomic energy and the control of such development, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums paid by way of grant or loan to any person engaged in the production or use of atomic energy or research into matters connected therewith;
(b) any sums required to defray expenses incurred by the Minister of Supply in the exercise of functions under the said Act; and
(c) any sums required by or under any provision of the said Act to be paid to any person by way of compensation or interest thereon."—[King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Wilmot.]

Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

Orders of the Day — ANTI-NAZI PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Captain Michael Stewart.]

9.30 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: I rise to ask for certain information affecting anti-Fascist prisoners of war, and I do so fully appreciating that the Cabinet statement last month has eased the situation very considerably. The House is very satisfied that there should be a general speeding up of repatriation and particularly satisfied that in that general speeding up priority will be given to those prisoners of war who have an anti-Fascist proved reputation. I am happy to be the first to have the privilege of questioning my hon. Friend who is on the Bench for the first time this evening in his capacity of Financial Secretary to the War Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad the House shares my feeling. I am particularly pleased because he himself claims a very big share of the credit for such improvements as have been made recently in the treatment and priorities given to anti-Fascist prisoners.
But for all that there are still a number of very sore points that, for the honour of this country and for our reputation as an anti-Facist House of Parliament, simply must be still further cleared up. To begin with, I have letters in my possession from young prisoners of war who say that in a two-minute interview they have their category defined—Class A, Class B or Class C. In most instances I am quite satisfied that the classification is correct, but since priorities of repatriation are now accompanying this classification I ask my hon. Friend if he will see that the prisoners know in which group they are. They ought not to be left to an atmosphere of rumour in the camps in which they get their information sometimes indirectly and sometimes not at all. It seems a reasonable proposition that the prisoners should know precisely whether they are being classified as A, B or C.
Further, as some of these segregation teams are unequal in quality, as the War Office like every other Department is sometimes short of labour and short of qualified labour, it seems to me reasonable that provision should now be made for persons classified as B or C to appeal.

I suggest that if testimonials are sent in on behalf of prisoners now classified B or C from anti-Fascist organisations in their country of origin that should mean speedy reassessment of their claims. I also suggest that there are many hon. Members who have long associations and ties both with organisations and with the case histories of prisoners, and it would be a good job of cooperation if more immediate regard could be paid to some of our correspondence, not that we ask that everything we say should be taken unchecked. What we really want is that when we have reason to believe that a man has a sound anti-Fascist record, his case should be checked with the minimum of delay.
Amongst the prisoners of war there is one group in particularly difficult circumstances, the Sudeten German anti-Fascists. I am informed by some of their representatives, old friends in the underground movement I knew before the war, that there are at least 300 known anti-Fascists among the Sudeten German prisoners of war. I cannot possibly ask that representatives from their home country should be called in to give testimony because of the situation well known to hon. Members, but I do ask that the Department should take note of those of us who are in a position to give information or to suggest individuals and organisations that can check up on those men in order that every non-Fascist should be given his priority. May I also ask that the compassionate clause should operate where those men find that their wives and children have been sent somewhere in Germany? They are still in British prisoner of war camps, they have the unhappiness of this broken family situation, and both on the anti-Fascist and on compassionate grounds, no unnecessary delay should occur before those men are returned to their home conditions.
There is another thing which is puzzling me in regard to prisoners of war in this country, and about which I would be glad to know more. How many new prisoners of war have been brought into this country, and who are they? From my correspondence I know that some of them are what might be called voluntary prisoners of war, that is, men who were quite willing to come back to this country and to accept the conditions. I have also reason to believe that some of them


are S.S. men. I have not the slightest objection to S.S. men coming into this country and taking the place of proved anti-Fascists who have been given priority of release, but I suggest that even in the case of those men they should know definitely how they stand, because it is not a good thing to have an atmosphere of unrest and rumour and cynicism in any camp. I can assure my hon. Friend who will reply that there is a good deal of doubt, and that it would be quite a simple matter to clear it up.
Another point at home here is that we have young Germans of the same age group among the prisoners classified B and C, who back in Germany, as this House knows, are now privileged by general amnesty for, even where they are members of the Fascist Party, it is understood that they were too young to be doing other than merely conforming to the status quo. If an amnesty is being given to those young Germans in Germany, then it would be a very good democratic and educational thing if they could be given certain privileges in this country whilst awaiting repatriation. By privilege I mean something of the same category as was given to the Italian cooperators, so that they can meet British people to a certain extent and see some of the British institutions. I am very well aware that most of the commandants running prisoner of war camps are doing their jobs very well and with great humanity, but there are instances where a commandant behaves in a way that I regard as unreasonable. For instance, one of the London trades council organisations thought it would be a good idea if some of the German anti-Fascist prisoners of war and some of those young fellows saw the British institutions, but there was objection by the camp commandant. Do not let us leave those prisoners of war at the mercy of caprice, even though most men in charge would behave very well. Surely, we can explain to those people what is happening in this country?
Now I come to what is to me a much sorer matter. I hope that before this House adjourns tonight something will be said to clear up a possible source of misunderstanding arising from an answer given by the Secretary of State for War this afternoon in reply to a Question as to how many of the German prisoners of war still retained in North Africa belonged to the German 999 Division and should be

returned. I speak subject to correction but, checking as best I can, the words of the Minister in reply were that separate statistics relating to the 999 battalion were not available and could not be obtained without a considerable amount of labour. I want this House to reflect for a minute on the possible source of cynicism, heartbreak, and misunderstanding behind that phrase. I want it cleared up. Some of these men for 10, 11 and 12 years have had no social community life and have been prisoners in Hitler's camp. Hitler did our original job for us, by screening them, and putting them through tests. He put them into gaol and concentration camps, but that was not because they were good Nazis. On all the priorities those men have a very special claim on this House. We cannot have the idea going into the camps where men have been victims for a decade that it would be too much trouble to find out about them, and that we cannot obtain information about the 999 Battalion. It is information many hon. Members in this House could give, almost the exact numbers of those men. There is something queer happening in that Department if they cannot find out.
I am concerned that the whole of the prisoners in the Middle East should be brought into repatriation schemes, but I am particularly stressing the position of the anti-Fascist prisoners of war. I hope we will make it quite clear tonight that the highest priority is going to those men, and that no trouble will be spared to locate them. In fact they are locating themselves. Incidentally, when I raised this issue once before, someone presumed to censor a letter sent to me by one of those men before it reached me. I got the un-censored version as well as the censored version. I do not want to have censored letters reaching me and have to resort to methods of communication which some of us in this House who were anti-Fascists when other Members supported Fascism had to resort to, in order to know what a prisoner of war in a British camp wants to say to me. I hope that will not happen again, but that we will say to these men that we understand all they have been through. I particularly hope that if reports come saying that they have had to be separated as some are Communists and some anti-British, we will remember that some of these men have their own description of some British personnel. I know there are some unjust adjectives used on


both sides, but let us not forget that some of these men have been sorely tried and that if we want them to be anti-British the best way to do it is to say that there is any trouble in locating them and giving them top priority and adequate facilities to get home.
That is the main thing I want to stress. There are a number of minor matters, and I am sorely tempted to go into case history, but it would be better to leave that to other hon. Members who wish to go into the cases. Will my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, who was such a valiant anti-Fascist and defender of these men when sitting on the back benches join in saying something which will go out to those camps and let the men know that when the British House of Commons says priorities are going to be given to anti-Fascists it means anti-Fascists in the Middle East as well as in other camps, all anti-Fascists? I know there were criminals among the men in the penal battalion, but I am talking of the political members of the penal battalion. Let them know that we in this House of Commons are an anti-Fascist assembly and are concerned to give them top priority, and have a greater respect for them than for the criminals we tried at Nuremberg.

945 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: The whole House must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) for having raised this vitally important matter this evening. Everyone on this side of the House certainly will be equally grateful that the new Financial Secretary is to reply this evening, because we all know how he, as an individual, as a back bencher, has fought for justice for anti-Fascist prisoners of war. This evening I wish to confine myself merely to the question of those members of the 999 Battalion who are still detained in captivity. I venture to do so because I raised this matter in this House some months ago. Then I was told that it was impossible to find out who these prisoners were and to separate them from the mass of prisoners, because of the administrative difficulties of sorting them out.
These prisoners have sorted themselves out, and I have had a letter from one of them. I am grateful to the military authorities for having authorised the transmission of that letter, from which I would

like to read. It is from Irvin Schultz, Camp 2228, c/o B.A.O.R., Hanover. He writes:
Why are not the anti-Nazis in British camps freed? I am here with 40 former political prisoners who spent 115 years as political prisoners in all under the Third Reich. They have already spent eight or nine years behind barbed wires. Is not it a moral duty to free these men who have gone through the hell of the Gestapo?
Then he goes on to say:
The uncertainty as to when they will be released after spending a further three years as prisoners of war is crushing. Is Nazism, beaten on the field of battle, to achieve its goal after all of destroying so many fighters for freedom?
He adds:
Humanity demands their immediate release.
These men are still in prison camps, both in the Middle East and in Germany. These are the men who were the first re-sisters to Hitler. These are the men, the few in Germany who fought Fascism as Germans, and these are the men on whom our British administration in Germany should be relying today in order to build up a democratic Germany. It seems to me that if we do not take the trouble to sort them out from prison camps and use them, these old Social Democrats who really are the hope of a future democratic Germany, we will have been failing in our duty.
It is not enough for the War Office to answer, when we ask for their release, that it is too much trouble or too difficult to find them, because surely it has always been a proud claim and a tradition of this House to consider that an injustice to one is as important as an injustice to a thousand or ten thousand. I believe, too, that the fact that we consider an injustice to a few to be as important as an injustice to many is what distinguishes our country from a totalitarian country. As this matter seems merely to be one of taking the necessary administrative steps in order to go through the lists to identify these men, it seems to me that there is no excuse whatever for failing to do so. I think it is generally agreed that these men have a right to their liberty. Many of their names are known, most of their units are known. It merely means the necessary effort to sort them out. I hope that the Financial Secretary will say that that work, however great, will be done, because I believe that our good name in the world


and good reputation among the anti-Nazis in Germany depends on the way in which we solve this problem.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I shall stand for only a very few moments between hon. Members and the debut of the Financial Secretary to the War Office at the Despatch Box. I feel sure his appointment has been welcomed in all parts of the House. I rise now mainly because I did not feel entirely satisfied with the answers given at Question time today to the Questions put down by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and myself in regard to the repatriation of German prisoners of war from the Middle East. During the Recess I visited a special German prisoners of war establishment in this country where there were certain German prisoners of war brought back from the Middle East. I found, in talking to them, a pronounced anxiety in regard to the position of German prisoners of war in prison camps in the Middle East in respect of repatriation arrangements. There was no doubt at all that in their minds these people had been overlooked. So marked was this feeling that some of the young prisoners of war, who had come over for this particular course from the camps of the Middle East, preferred to return there rather than take advantage of the rights that would accrue to them from being in this country, because they felt that it was a duty they owed to their comrades they had left behind in the Middle East. Taking account of that very strong feeling, it did not seem to me that the answers of the Secretary of State were entirely satisfactory this afternoon. I urge the Financial Secretary to see that further attention is given to this matter of prisoners of war in the Middle East and to see if they cannot be fitted more fairly into the repatriation arrangements existing for German prisoners of war in this country. I am sure that this House would not like it to be thought that a mere accident of geography should discriminate against people in a matter such as this.
With regard to the particular case of the 999 Division which has been raised, I would say only this. The fact that the Nazi Government saw fit to mix in this unit political offenders, as they then were, with ordinary criminals, no doubt makes more difficult the administrative task of

the War Office. I entirely appreciate that, as I am sure does the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) who initiated this discussion. The fact that this is so to my mind places a still greater responsibility upon the War Office that in spite of that additional difficulty they should get matters sorted out as soon as may be. I welcome particularly the reference of the hon. Member for Cannock to the young German prisoners of war and to their categorisation. I think it is beyond question true that there are a large number of very young German prisoners of war who are categorised as Nazi because of an association with the Hitler Jugend, or some such organisation, but who are not in any political sense of the word Nazis. I believe it is to these younger elements more particularly that we shall have to look as one of the mainsprings of a satisfactory working democracy in Germany. I wish to reinforce the hon. Lady's plea for sympathetic consideration of the cases of these young German prisoners of war. I think that the Financial Secretary will make his debut all the more welcome to the House if he is able to give some measure of reassurance to the anxiety that is widely felt on these matters, and give some indication of action which his Department can take in the case of prisoners in the Middle East.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I regret that I am rising to raise a discordant voice on this question. I believe we are altogether wrong in giving political priority for the release of these prisoners, and I myself hope that this system of grading prisoners according to their political opinions will be abolished. I do not say that primarily because it is so very difficult to grade them correctly, but because, in fact, the men who make the highest grade are probably those with the most pliant and most subservient views rather than those with more genuine feelings. Apart from that consideration, there is a very grave objection in principle, or rather two very grave objections. A good many of us feel rather uncomfortable about the retention of these men in captivity and servitude at all, but the one thing which we as democrats cannot stand for is the incarceration of people because of their political opinions. If we give priorities of release to those whose political opinions we approve, the necessary consequence is that


we are keeping other people in prison longer because we do not approve of their political opinions, and I believe that that, as far as we are concerned, is an intolerable thing to do.
I would further say that one has to look at it from the other aspect of what is going to happen in the Germany of the future. How are the other prisoners, who will, I suppose, eventually return to Germany, going to feel about those who were given favouritism by the conquerors because they were pliant to the conquerors' political ideas? I believe that, by picking out people as political favourites, to whom we are going to give the favour of liberty, we are, in effect, damning them and damning their influence in their own country. Imagine the resentment which we should feel if numbers of our comrades who had served with us, who were in prison with us, were picked out because the Nazis liked their political opinions and who were given favours and sent back home before us. When we came back and caught up with these fellows, when we had eventually recovered our liberty, how should we treat them? What would be their influence in our community?
I believe very strongly that all should be treated alike, but that there should be compassionate release for those whose families have been expelled from their homes. We should consider the terrible cases of the families who have been expelled from their ancestral homes in the Sudetenland. Those are the people to whom we should give the first priority for release. As to the others, they should be treated without any political priority whatever.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Michael Stewart.]

Mr. Paget: One exception might, perhaps, be made in regard to the 999 Division. It might be said that these men were never really soldiers at all, that they ought never to have been prisoners and that, with regard to that particular division, the men are not being specially picked out for favourable treatment because of their political opinions. That could be done, but, with regard to the

ordinary political grades, I would urge that our policy ought to be reconsidered.

10.1 p.m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I will detain the House for only a few minutes before the new Parliamentary Secretary, whom we are all glad to see here, replies. I simply cannot understand some of the things which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said. Some of the anti-Fascist Germans about whom the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) was speaking and whom some of us have known very well for a long time have been through long years of torture in concentration camps. It is not because of their opinions that we suggest different treatment; it is because those prisoners have been virtually on our side all the time. Many of them have always been Social Democrats and have stood for the things for which we fought this war. Surely, the first people who should be released are those who have stood for the things which we all believe in.
I do not propose to go into detail about that because this argument seems to me too complicated to answer. What I really wanted to ask for was consideration for a type of prisoner who has not been mentioned. I have come across a few German prisoners of war who are quite alone and are not living in camps. For instance, I met one this summer who was working in Somerset when I was on holiday. He was a young German whose father was a farmer and who had been brought up in that way. He was taken prisoner and has done very good agricultural work in a little village in Somerset. As far as I can find out, he is not within 50 miles of another German and is completely isolated and alone. The farmer speaks well of him and I found him to be completely anti-Nazi. During the war his father was in a concentration camp. It seems to me that young prisoners like that, who have been doing good work in isolated circumstances and who are necessarily very lonely because they have not been allowed to mix with British people who would be friendly with them, should be among the first priority and should not be kept where they are merely because they are doing a good job in their extreme loneliness. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to such prisoners. There must be comparatively few prisoners of war


in this country who are all alone and away from any friends.

10.5 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): The House will, I am sure, understand the certain degree of diffidence with which I stand at this Despatch Box for the first time. A baptism of fire is always something of an occasion, and I will only say that if one has to have a baptism of fire I cannot imagine a more charming agency through which to receive it than the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). Her fire has all the best qualities of fires; it is both purifying and stimulating.
Some interesting questions have been asked and some interesting views expressed this evening, and in trying to reply to this Debate I think it would be as well if I first recapitulated the background against which this argument has taken place; that is to say, the announcement made by His Majesty's Government a few weeks ago about the repatriation scheme for prisoners of war. There were two phases concerning our dealing with prisoners of war. For the first period we kept them; we did not try to repatriate them. We have now got to the second stage where it is accepted that prisoners of war should be repatriated according to the most orderly scheme and in the most orderly manner which we can devise. The scheme which started at the end of last month is roughly this: Every month 15,000 prisoners of war will go from this country back to their native land. They will be selected according to four categories: in the first place, the prisoners who are known in the official jargon as the "white" prisoners; that is to say, the proved anti-Nazis; secondly, prisoners who are selected on economic grounds because they are urgently needed according to types for the rehabilitation of Germany; thirdly, compassionate cases where investigation by the authorities in Germany shows an urgent compassionate ground on much the same lines as we work it out in our own Army. Those prisoners will, up to a certain quota, be repatriated with a high priority. Fourthly, prisoners will take their turn in a sort of release scheme which is comparable with our own demobilisation scheme according to the length of time they have been prisoners. That scheme started at the end of last month. It is too early yet to be able to report to the

House whether it is working satisfactorily or not, but the intention is that 15,000 men every month shall go under the scheme.
With that background, I would like to turn to the questions which have been put to me. In the first place the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock asked about the methods of screening and classification of prisoners, and whether or not prisoners are adequately informed of the category in which they are placed. I am perfectly certain—and she will understand this—that none of these things is done perfectly. The military authorities and the Control Office are working under great difficulties, and we are doing the best we can to classify these people as intelligently and as reliably as we can. It is, after all, in the interests of the control authorities just as much as of the prisoners that these people should be repatriated in an orderly fashion and in accordance with the correct priorities. As regards informing them of the position, once again, there have been cases where adequate information has not been given. I am satisfied that, as far as possible, steps have now been taken to see that prisoners are fully informed of all these regulations and how they stand. If the hon. Lady finds that this is not working, as I hope and believe it is, and will let us know, we will do the best we can to put it right.
She next raised the question of the anti-Nazi Sudeten Germans to the number of 300 who are alleged to be in this country. My answer on that point is a perfectly simple one, namely, that we have no official knowledge of them; we cannot at the moment trace these people. No one has a greater knowledge of the Socialist movement in Europe than the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock, and I say to her completely sincerely, that if she will give us the information which she apparently has I will undertake that all these cases will be looked at individually, and if when they are screened they do prove to be the reliable anti-Nazis which she believes they will be treated in the highest priority of "white" Germans.
The hon. Lady asked for information as to whether or not new prisoners of war were going to be brought to this country. On that I can give a piece of information which is, I think, of value to the House.


It has been alleged that there is a constant stream of new prisoners being brought here from overseas. That is not so. No more prisoners of war will be coming to this country from overseas, with the exception of one fairly large contingent which has actually started moving from Canada and will arrive here in the near future. Apart from that, of course, there may be occasions when prisoners being moved from distant places in the world will pass through this country in transit. However, as a matter of policy the bringing of prisoners of war to this country from other countries is now over.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend a question on that? Have these prisoners been informed that they are coming here or that they are going home? All the prisoners from America were told they were going home, but they were brought here.

Mr. Freeman: I appreciate that question of my hon. Friend. To the best of my belief they have been correctly informed that they are coming here. I have actually asked that question myself. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock, as did the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), raised the question about the very young prisoners of war, and whether any special treatment can be devised for them. The suggestion which she made, that they should be given a privileged position comparable with that of Italian cooperators, involves a wide matter of policy. I am sure she will realise that I could not make a statement on that at this moment. However, I would draw her attention to the fact that we are increasing the opportunities for rehabilitating and re-educating the younger prisoners of war on similar lines to the scheme which is already well known at Wilton Park. Further developments of that method are being created, though I do not think any of them are yet on the same scale as at Wilton Park. We are alive to the difficulties of re-educating the younger Germans to a sense of social duty and democratic politics.
The hon. Lady then made her important point, in which she was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) and the hon. Member for Hertford, about the 999 German division. I think there have been some

misconceptions about the whole position here, particularly about the reply which my right hon. Friend gave the House at Question time this afternoon. The 999 Division was a division consisting of men who were considered by the Nazi Government to be criminals. Some of them were criminals convicted of ordinary criminal offences. A very large number were political criminals who came from the concentration camps. It has been objected that my right hon. Friend said this afternoon that it was not possible, or that the trouble was disproportionate, to find out how many of these men were held.
The position is simply this. These men have now become mixed in camps with other prisoners. It is perfectly true that they have a special claim, as the hon. Lady said, but it is not necessarily true that they have any more a special claim than other politically reliable, proved anti-Nazis. The War Office records in fact show, in so far as screening has so far been carried out, where the anti-Nazis are; and wherever they are, whether members of the 999 Division or not, they will receive priority in repatriation. War Office records do not at the moment show exactly which of the proved anti-Nazis were, in fact, members of the 999 Division, and it is held that it would be administratively difficult to work that out at this stage. I recognise that there has been some feeling in the House on that point, and I am quite prepared, in concession to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), to look at that again to see whether or not it can be done. But I do put this to the House, that what really matters is whether or not those people are proved anti-Nazis, and not whether or not they were members of a particular Division. If they are anti-Nazis they will have the priority. Does it really matter very much whether they belong to one Division or another? Because that is all it boils down to. The hon. Lady finally referred to the censorship of her letter. I do not think this is the proper place in which to deal with a perfectly specific complaint of that nature. If she has any such complaint to make, if she will let me have the details, I will do what I can to deal with it.
The hon. Member for Hertford, in addition to speaking of the 999 Division, raised the question of the general status of prisoners of war in the Middle East, and


he said he thought it undesirable that an accident of geography—I think those were his words—should lead to any different treatment for them. Now there is, of course, no question of an accident of geography. There are many factors and very many difficulties which have to be taken into account in repatriating those prisoners of war, and in handling what are, after all, very considerable movements of troops and men in doing so, and there have been particular difficulties in regard to the Middle East. I regret to have to tell him, that it does not at the moment look likely that there may be, in the immediate future, any general repatriation from the Middle East. But what I wish him to get quite clear, and what, I think, will ease his mind, at any rate, on one point is this: that among the Middle East prisoners there are a certain number of Austrians and a certain number of proved anti-Nazis classified as "Whites"; that these people will be repatriated with only the minimum delay; that their repatriation is starting very soon, and that we shall get them back to their countries as quickly as that can be done.
The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) took, in his usual original manner, exactly the opposite line from everybody else—I think I may say, from the great majority of the people present. I must say, quite frankly, and speaking on behalf of the Department which I am representing tonight, that we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's view. He advanced his argument, as he so often does, with great ingenuity, and, I thought, with very great logic, until he weakened his case—in my submission, in fact, he destroyed it completely—where he came to the point at which he had to admit that in the case of the 999 Division we might make an exception. His logic was accepted by the whole House, until, I think, the very moment when he made that admission; because, if his argument is true, there is not the slightest reason for making any exception for the 999 Division or for anyone else. If we are to fulfil our responsibilities in this very important, human matter we must look at it against this background. It is really stretching a point—and I am sure the House as a whole will agree with us—to say that to repatriate those people, who, of necessity, have to be repatriated in driblets, by allowing the true anti-Nazis to go first

is to imprison people for their political views. That, really, in my view, is an affront to the science of logic, which I have always regarded as an admirable science.

Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me? He has attacked me. What I said, if I might remind him, was that they were really labourers and not soldiers at all, and therefore it might be possible to take the position that they ought never really to have been prisoners of war at all but should have been treated as camp followers and liberated on another basis. That would not cut into the general framework of picking particular people out because you favour their political opinions and giving them priority.

Miss Lee: Might I ask my hon. Friend, in replying, to suggest to our colleague that some of us fought an anti-Fascist war, and some of us are anti-Fascists whatever he may be?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Northampton eases his conscience considerably if he can persuade himself of the validity of the argument he has just used, but when it is looked at fairly and squarely by the House it will be realised that in fact he took up a position which was logically tenable but humanly impossible. Finally, finding himself pricked by his conscience when his logical mind saw where he was being led, he did a complete volte face in order to salve his conscience. Be that as it may, we have to reject that approach to it. We believe that to give priority of repatriation first to proved anti-Nazis is the right way of doing it.
I have covered I hope the important points which have been raised, and perhaps I should just say this in conclusion. In my short experience in this House it has always seemed that the House is at its best when discussing a matter which involves human issues and our consciences in the way that this subject does, and perhaps the Ministers who are seeking to reply to Debates of this kind are at their greatest disadvantage in having sometimes to pour a douche of cold water on the warm-hearted sentiments of Members. The position of the Government is perfectly clear. We cannot— and the House and the country would not


wish us to—treat the German prisoners of war with such consideration, or with such softness, as to deprive the people of this country of what they need, or hamper the reconstruction of this country. But we do believe that they should be treated with humanity, and with the dignity and decency which they deserve as human beings, and which we Socialists on this side of the House at any rate have always striven for and held in the greatest respect. With all the difficulties involved, we shall try to do that. I hope that when hon. Members have had a chance of seeing how this new scheme is working

they will be able to feel, in about a month's time, that the situation is very much more satisfactory than it has been in the past.

Mr. William Wells: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him whether I correctly understood him to say that priority of release was being given to Austrians?

Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.